Coworking Atmospheres: On the Interplay of Curated Spaces and the View of Coworkers as Space-acting Subjects 3658411929, 9783658411923

Table of contents :
Summary
Contents
List of Abbreviations
List of Figures
List of Tables
1 Introduction
Part I Subject, Theoretical Reference Concepts and State of Research
2 Background and Characterization of Coworking Spaces
2.1 Coworking Spaces as a Response to the Challenges of the World of Work
2.1.1 Change of the World of Work
2.1.2 Transformation of Office Workspaces
2.1.3 Today’s Office Work Spaces: Traditional or Flexible and Aestheticized
2.1.4 Dissolution and Subjectification of Work
2.2 Characterization of Coworking Spaces
2.2.1 Spaces of Work
2.2.2 Spaces of Communitization
2.2.3 Coworking Hosts and Curating
2.2.4 Definitional Classification and Sketching of the Field
2.2.5 Aestheticized Work Spaces
2.3 Characterization of the Coworkers
3 Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community
3.1 Space as a Social Construction
3.1.1 Absolute, Relative and Relational Space
3.1.2 Relational Spatial Concept According to Löw
3.2 Atmosphere as a Connection between Subject and Space
3.2.1 Philosophical-Aesthetic and Spatial-Sociological Approach to Atmosphere
3.2.2 Production of Atmospheres in the Context of Aesthetic Work
3.2.2.1 Böhme’s Critique of the Aesthetic Economy: The Staging Value of Goods
3.2.2.2 Curating as Atmosphere Management
3.2.3 Creating One’s Own Atmospheres
3.2.4 Implications for the Analytical Examination of Atmospheres
3.3 Two Perspectives on Space and Atmosphere
3.3.1 Object Perspective: The Spatial Arrangements and Their Effect
3.3.1.1 The Non-Human Space: Things, Artifacts and Architecture
3.3.1.2 Reference to Psychology: Affordances
3.3.2 Subject Perspective: The Exploration of Spaces by the Subjects
3.3.2.1 Spatial Experience and Experienced Space
3.3.2.2 Appropriating and Creating One’s Own Spaces
3.3.2.3 Relation to Psychology: Personal Space, Privacy, Closeness and Distance, Territoriality
3.4 Further Connections between Subject and Space
3.4.1 Spatial Practices
3.4.2 Spatial Settings
3.5 Community as Communitization
3.5.1 Communitization and Societization
3.5.2 Posttraditional Communitizations
4 Connection to the Object of Investigation and State of Research
4.1 Relational Spaces in the Context of Modern Office Work
4.2 The Spaces and Atmospheres of Coworking Spaces
4.2.1 The Relational Spaces of Coworking Spaces
4.2.2 The Creation of Atmospheres in the Context of Curating
4.2.3 The Curators of Coworking Spaces
4.3 Community in the Context of Modern Office Work
4.4 Coworking Space Communities
4.5 Summary of the State of Research and Research Gap
5 Intermediate Conclusion: Conceptual Framing and Research Questions
5.1 Conceptual Framing for the Exploration of the Spaces and Atmospheres of Coworking
5.2 Research Questions
Part II Structure of the Empirical Study
6 Methodological Approach
6.1 Data Collection
6.1.1 Photo Interviews with Users: Photo Elicitation
6.1.2 Interviews with Members of the Operating Team
6.1.3 Participating Observation or Observing Participation
6.1.4 Deep Involvement in the Field
6.2 Case Selection and Overview of the Samples
6.2.1 Sample Tabit
6.2.2 Sample Sargas
6.3 Data Preparation and Analysis
6.3.1 Exploring and Structuring: Qualitative Content Analysis
6.3.2 Detailed Analyses: Hermeneutic Interpretation
6.3.3 Typification
6.4 Critical Reflection on the Research Design
Part III Results of the Empirical Study
7 Case Portraits of the Examined Coworking Spaces
7.1 Case Portrait Tabit
7.1.1 Background
7.1.2 Spaces and Experiences
7.1.2.1 Classic Office
7.1.2.2 Creative Space
7.1.2.3 Overall Assessment of Tabit and its Spaces
7.2 Case Portrait Sargas
7.2.1 Background
7.2.2 Spaces and Experiences
7.2.2.1 Overall Design and Considerations for Spatial Design
7.2.2.2 Garden
7.2.2.3 Café
7.2.2.4 Vibrant Floor
7.2.2.5 Silent Floor
7.2.2.6 Overall Assessment of Sargas and its Spaces
7.3 Intermediate Conclusion: Typical Work Settings
8 Material Shape: Practices, Spaces and Atmospheres
8.1 Practices for Maintaining Distance and Creating Proximity
8.1.1 Doing Being Busy
8.1.2 Doing Being Open
8.2 The Production of Spatial Atmospheres of Work and Atmospheres of Communitization
8.2.1 Spaces for Concentrated Mental Work
8.2.2 Spaces for Interaction
8.3 The Production of Communal Atmospheres Through Events and Trust-Building Practices
8.3.1 Events
8.3.2 Trust-Building Practices and Rituals
8.4 Intermediate Conclusion: The Material Shape of Coworking Spaces and the Role of Curating
9 Subject Perspective I: The Entry into the Coworking Space
9.1 Motives and Advantages for Working in the Coworking Space
9.2 The Search for the Right Coworking Space
9.2.1 How the Coworkers Became Aware of the CWS
9.2.2 The Decision for the CWS and the Role of Atmospheres
9.3 Intermediate Conclusion: Entering the Coworking Space
10 Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work
10.1 Arriving and Settling in: The Own Placement in the Coworking Space
10.1.1 Action-Guiding Dimensions for One’s Own Placement
10.1.1.1 Type of Activity and Work Setting
10.1.1.2 Co-present Others
10.1.1.3 The Things and the Inanimate Space: Instrumentality, Aesthetics, Symbolism
10.1.1.4 Own State of Mind and (Well)-Being in the Space
10.1.2 Positioning of Flex-Desk Users
10.1.3 Retreat Spaces
10.1.4 Intermediate Conclusion: Arriving and Settling in
10.2 Setting Up: Positioning at the Place and Involved Artifacts
10.2.1 Workplaces and Associated Reconstructions
10.2.2 Technical Artifacts and Their Role in the Constitution of the Workplace: Laptop and Headphones
10.2.3 Excursus: The Importance of the Analog-Material Space in the Context of Team Work
10.2.4 Intermediate Conclusion: Setting Up
10.3 Dealing with the Search for Flexible Workplaces
10.3.1 Own Attitude Towards the Flex-Desk Concept
10.3.2 Practices of Territory Formation Opposed to the Flex-Desk Concept
10.4 User Types I: Situationally Changing Office Nomads, Conventional and Unconventional Office Workers
10.4.1 Situationally Changing Office Nomads
10.4.2 Conventional Office Workers
10.4.3 Unconventional Office Workers
10.5 Intermediate Conclusion: The Subjective Development of the Spaces of Work
11 Subject Perspective III: The Development of the Spaces of Communitization
11.1 Experienced Relationships and Social Interactions
11.1.1 Experienced Relationships with Other Coworkers
11.1.2 Experienced Social Interactions
11.1.3 Individual Differences in the Building of Social Relationships
11.2 Subjective Meaning of and Participation in Events and Activities
11.3 User Types II: Work-Focused and Community-Oriented
11.3.1 Work-Focused
11.3.2 Community-Oriented
11.4 Intermediate Conclusion: The Subjective Development of the Spaces of Communitization
12 Subject Perspective IV: Views On the Social Formations of the Coworking Space
12.1 The True Coworking: The Coworking Space As a Self-Organized Communitization
12.2 The Commodity Coworking: The Coworking Space As a Service Provider
12.3 Curated Coworking: The Coworking Space As Guided Communitization
12.4 Own Role in Relation to the Social Formations
12.5 Intermediate Conclusion: Perspectives On the Social Formations of the Coworking Space
13 Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life
13.1 Tensions in Relation to the Commodity Coworking
13.1.1 Service Work Space
13.1.2 Service of Community Space
13.2 Tensions in Relation to the True Coworking
13.2.1 Self-Organized Work Community
13.2.2 Lack of Active Participation of Users in Communal Activities
13.3 Dealing With Tensions
13.3.1 Coworkers Act as Community Members
13.3.2 Curating: Staging Authentic Communal Atmospheres
13.4 Intermediate Conclusion: Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life
14 Final Consideration
14.1 The Role of Atmospheres in Everyday Coworking Space Life
14.2 Coworking Spaces as Curated Post-Traditional Work Communities
14.3 Atmospheres as Emotional Commodities With High Staging Value
14.4 Coworkers as Working Customers
14.5 Practical Implications
14.6 Overall Reflection and Outlook
References

Citation preview

Alexandra Bernhardt

Coworking Atmospheres On the Interplay of Curated Spaces and the View of Coworkers as Space-acting Subjects

Coworking Atmospheres

Alexandra Bernhardt

Coworking Atmospheres On the Interplay of Curated Spaces and the View of Coworkers as Space-acting Subjects

Alexandra Bernhardt Jena, Germany

ISBN 978-3-658-41192-3 ISBN 978-3-658-41193-0  (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41193-0 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature. The registered company address is: Abraham-Lincoln-Str. 46, 65189 Wiesbaden, Germany

Summary

In the course of the transformation of the world of work, the spaces of work also change, as the establishment of coworking spaces (CWSs) shows. These are flexibly usable institutionalized workspaces, where the importance of community at work gains a new meaning. This new connection between work and community, so the initial thesis, is expressed in spatial action and spatial arrangements as well as in the associated atmospheres. Against this background, the present work deals with the spatial atmospheres of CWSs as mediating entities between spatially acting subjects and spatial arrangements and their significance in everyday CWS life or in the everyday life of the users of CWSs. Although the atmospheres of CWSs have also moved into the focus of interest in recent CWS research, there has been no systematic consideration of the phenomenon, as it is done in the context of this work. The present study is also characterized by putting the subject perspective of the spatially acting coworkers in the focus of the examination. The core of the investigation consists of two case studies in urban CWSs, whereby a method-plural qualitative research design oriented towards ethnography was pursued. In the course of the analysis, on the one hand, it is considered what coworking means in everyday life and thus the new communality at work. Relevant practices and rituals, spatial arrangements and atmospheres are worked out in their composition. On the other hand, the coworkers, their spatial action and associated attitudes are brought closer into view, which represents the focus of the work: Here it is shown how the users open up CWSs as work and community spaces and what role atmospheres play in this process. In addition, various social formations are highlighted in the context of the work, which are taken up by the coworkers in relation to their CWS and which also shape everyday CWS life. Tensions are revealed that arise from a coexistence of community and service logic. In dealing with them, community images are activated by both coworkers and operators. The

V

VI

Summary

social formations of CWSs can be understood as curated post-traditional work communities. CWSs seduce their users not only by appealing work atmospheres, but also by authentic communal atmospheres, which at the same time convey a binding non-commitment.

Contents

1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Part I  Subject, Theoretical Reference Concepts and State of Research 2

Background and Characterization of Coworking Spaces. . . . . . . . . . 11 2.1 Coworking Spaces as a Response to the Challenges of the World of Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.1.1 Change of the World of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.1.2 Transformation of Office Workspaces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.1.3 Today’s Office Work Spaces: Traditional or Flexible and Aestheticized. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.1.4 Dissolution and Subjectification of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2.2 Characterization of Coworking Spaces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.2.1 Spaces of Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.2.2 Spaces of Communitization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.2.3 Coworking Hosts and Curating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2.2.4 Definitional Classification and Sketching of the Field. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.2.5 Aestheticized Work Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 2.3 Characterization of the Coworkers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

3

Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 3.1 Space as a Social Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 3.1.1 Absolute, Relative and Relational Space. . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 3.1.2 Relational Spatial Concept According to Löw. . . . . . . . . 54 3.2 Atmosphere as a Connection between Subject and Space. . . . . . . 60

VII

VIII

Contents

3.2.1

3.3

3.4

3.5

Philosophical-Aesthetic and Spatial-Sociological Approach to Atmosphere. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 3.2.2 Production of Atmospheres in the Context of Aesthetic Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 3.2.3 Creating One’s Own Atmospheres. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 3.2.4 Implications for the Analytical Examination of Atmospheres. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Two Perspectives on Space and Atmosphere. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 3.3.1 Object Perspective: The Spatial Arrangements and Their Effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 3.3.2 Subject Perspective: The Exploration of Spaces by the Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Further Connections between Subject and Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 3.4.1 Spatial Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 3.4.2 Spatial Settings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Community as Communitization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 3.5.1 Communitization and Societization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 3.5.2 Posttraditional Communitizations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

4

Connection to the Object of Investigation and State of Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 4.1 Relational Spaces in the Context of Modern Office Work. . . . . . . 99 4.2 The Spaces and Atmospheres of Coworking Spaces. . . . . . . . . . . 103 4.2.1 The Relational Spaces of Coworking Spaces. . . . . . . . . . 103 4.2.2 The Creation of Atmospheres in the Context of Curating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 4.2.3 The Curators of Coworking Spaces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 4.3 Community in the Context of Modern Office Work . . . . . . . . . . . 112 4.4 Coworking Space Communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 4.5 Summary of the State of Research and Research Gap. . . . . . . . . . 120

5

Intermediate Conclusion: Conceptual Framing and Research Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 5.1 Conceptual Framing for the Exploration of the Spaces and Atmospheres of Coworking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 5.2 Research Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Contents

IX

Part II  Structure of the Empirical Study 6

Methodological Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 6.1 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 6.1.1 Photo Interviews with Users: Photo Elicitation. . . . . . . . 137 6.1.2 Interviews with Members of the Operating Team. . . . . . 142 6.1.3 Participating Observation or Observing Participation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 6.1.4 Deep Involvement in the Field. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 6.2 Case Selection and Overview of the Samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 6.2.1 Sample Tabit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 6.2.2 Sample Sargas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 6.3 Data Preparation and Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 6.3.1 Exploring and Structuring: Qualitative Content Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 6.3.2 Detailed Analyses: Hermeneutic Interpretation. . . . . . . . 162 6.3.3 Typification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 6.4 Critical Reflection on the Research Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Part III  Results of the Empirical Study 7

Case Portraits of the Examined Coworking Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 7.1 Case Portrait Tabit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 7.1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 7.1.2 Spaces and Experiences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 7.2 Case Portrait Sargas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 7.2.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 7.2.2 Spaces and Experiences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 7.3 Intermediate Conclusion: Typical Work Settings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

8

Material Shape: Practices, Spaces and Atmospheres . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 8.1 Practices for Maintaining Distance and Creating Proximity. . . . . 206 8.1.1 Doing Being Busy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 8.1.2 Doing Being Open. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 8.2 The Production of Spatial Atmospheres of Work and Atmospheres of Communitization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 8.2.1 Spaces for Concentrated Mental Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 8.2.2 Spaces for Interaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 8.3 The Production of Communal Atmospheres Through Events and Trust-Building Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

X

Contents

8.4 9

8.3.1 Events. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 8.3.2 Trust-Building Practices and Rituals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Intermediate Conclusion: The Material Shape of Coworking Spaces and the Role of Curating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

Subject Perspective I: The Entry into the Coworking Space. . . . . . . 241 9.1 Motives and Advantages for Working in the Coworking Space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 9.2 The Search for the Right Coworking Space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 9.2.1 How the Coworkers Became Aware of the CWS. . . . . . . 248 9.2.2 The Decision for the CWS and the Role of Atmospheres. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 9.3 Intermediate Conclusion: Entering the Coworking Space. . . . . . . 255

10 Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work. . . . 257 10.1 Arriving and Settling in: The Own Placement in the Coworking Space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 10.1.1 Action-Guiding Dimensions for One’s Own Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 10.1.2 Positioning of Flex-Desk Users. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 10.1.3 Retreat Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 10.1.4 Intermediate Conclusion: Arriving and Settling in . . . . . 293 10.2 Setting Up: Positioning at the Place and Involved Artifacts . . . . . 294 10.2.1 Workplaces and Associated Reconstructions. . . . . . . . . . 295 10.2.2 Technical Artifacts and Their Role in the Constitution of the Workplace: Laptop and Headphones. . . . . . . . . . . 303 10.2.3 Excursus: The Importance of the Analog-Material Space in the Context of Team Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308 10.2.4 Intermediate Conclusion: Setting Up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 10.3 Dealing with the Search for Flexible Workplaces. . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 10.3.1 Own Attitude Towards the Flex-Desk Concept. . . . . . . . 313 10.3.2 Practices of Territory Formation Opposed to the Flex-Desk Concept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 10.4 User Types I: Situationally Changing Office Nomads, Conventional and Unconventional Office Workers. . . . . . . . . . . . 320 10.4.1 Situationally Changing Office Nomads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 10.4.2 Conventional Office Workers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 10.4.3 Unconventional Office Workers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327

Contents

XI

10.5 Intermediate Conclusion: The Subjective Development of the Spaces of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 11 Subject Perspective III: The Development of the Spaces of Communitization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 11.1 Experienced Relationships and Social Interactions. . . . . . . . . . . . 334 11.1.1 Experienced Relationships with Other Coworkers . . . . . 335 11.1.2 Experienced Social Interactions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 11.1.3 Individual Differences in the Building of Social Relationships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346 11.2 Subjective Meaning of and Participation in Events and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 11.3 User Types II: Work-Focused and Community-Oriented . . . . . . . 358 11.3.1 Work-Focused . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358 11.3.2 Community-Oriented. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360 11.4 Intermediate Conclusion: The Subjective Development of the Spaces of Communitization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 12 Subject Perspective IV: Views On the Social Formations of the Coworking Space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365 12.1 The True Coworking: The Coworking Space As a Self-Organized Communitization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366 12.2 The Commodity Coworking: The Coworking Space As a Service Provider. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 12.3 Curated Coworking: The Coworking Space As Guided Communitization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372 12.4 Own Role in Relation to the Social Formations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 12.5 Intermediate Conclusion: Perspectives On the Social Formations of the Coworking Space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377 13 Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381 13.1 Tensions in Relation to the Commodity Coworking . . . . . . . . . . . 382 13.1.1 Service Work Space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 13.1.2 Service of Community Space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396 13.2 Tensions in Relation to the True Coworking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401 13.2.1 Self-Organized Work Community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401 13.2.2 Lack of Active Participation of Users in Communal Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403 13.3 Dealing With Tensions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409 13.3.1 Coworkers Act as Community Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . 409

XII

Contents

13.3.2 Curating: Staging Authentic Communal Atmospheres. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414 13.4 Intermediate Conclusion: Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425 14 Final Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429 14.1 The Role of Atmospheres in Everyday Coworking Space Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430 14.2 Coworking Spaces as Curated Post-Traditional Work Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439 14.3 Atmospheres as Emotional Commodities With High Staging Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441 14.4 Coworkers as Working Customers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445 14.5 Practical Implications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449 14.6 Overall Reflection and Outlook. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461

List of Abbreviations

note AB Note by Alexandra Bernhardt COW Community of Work CWS/CWSs Coworking Space/Coworking Spaces ibid. ibidem ICT Information and communications technology inc. incomprehensible LWE Ethnographic Life-world/Life-world-Analysis QCA Qualitative Content Analysis RGCS Research Group on Collaborative Spaces SOC Sense of Community

XIII

List of Figures

Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2 Fig. 7.1 Fig. 7.2 Fig. 7.3 Fig. 7.4 Fig. 7.5 Fig. 7.6 Fig. 8.1 Fig. 8.2 Fig. 8.3 Fig. 8.4 Fig. 8.5 Fig. 10.1 Fig. 10.2 Fig. 10.3 Fig. 10.4 Fig. 10.5

General conceptual framing—analysis of CWS spaces and atmospheres. (Own illustration). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Conceptual framing—analysis of CWS spaces and atmospheres of work and communitization. (Own illustration) . 126 Section of Tabit Classic Office. (Photo: Timo). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Section of Tabit Creative Space. (Photo: Tanja) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Section of Sargas Garden. (Photo: Samantha). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Section of Sargas Café. (Photo: Sabine). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Section of Sargas Vibrant Floor. (Photo: Sophie). . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Section of Sargas Silent Floor. (Photo: Stefan). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 Conceptual framing—locating chapter 8 (gray marking). (Own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 Lunch at the Sargas Café. (Photo: Simon) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 Barista coffee machine in the Tabit Creative Space. (Photos from left to right by users Troy, Timo and Toni) . . . . . . 225 Section Sargas Café. (Picture: Sheldon). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 Trust box (marked) and drinks fridge in the Tabit Creative Space. (Photo: operator Tabea). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 Conceptual framing—locating chapter 10 (gray marking). (Own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 Action-guiding dimensions for one’s own placement. (Own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Section Sargas Café. (Photo: Stefan). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 Section Tabit Creative Space. (Photo: Troy). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Photo of Tanja’s workplace in the Tabit Creative Space. (Photo: Tanja) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

XV

XVI

Fig. 10.6 Fig. 10.7 Fig. 10.8 Fig. 10.9 Fig. 10.10 Fig. 10.11 Fig. 10.12 Fig. 10.13 Fig. 10.14 Fig. 10.15 Fig. 10.16 Fig. 10.17 Fig. 10.18 Fig. 10.19 Fig. 11.1 Fig. 11.2 Fig. 11.3 Fig. 11.4 Fig. 11.5 Fig. 11.6 Fig. 12.1 Fig. 13.1 Fig. 13.2 Fig. 13.3 Fig. 13.4

List of Figures

Photo of Timo’s workplace in the Tabit Creative Space. (Photo: Timo). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 Photo of Till’s workplace in the Tabit Creative Space. (Photo: Till). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 Outdoor space in front of Tabit (Photo: Timo) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 Photo of Sandro’s workplace in the Sargas Silent Floor. (Photo: Sandro). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 Sophie’s preferred work setup. (Photo: Sophie). . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 Excerpt meeting room Tabit Classic Office. (Photo: Timo) . . . . 290 Section of multifunctional space Sargas Vibrant Floor. (Photo: Serge) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 Left: reduced flexible-desk workplace (Photo: Tarek), right: occupied flexible-desk workplace. (Photo: Stefan). . . . . . . . . . . 297 Photo of Tamara’s workplace in team office. (Photo: Tamara). . 298 Miniature designer chair at Tristan’s workstation. (Photo: Tristan). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 Headphone rules. (Reused from The Creative Space 2012 by Jess Clarke with kind permission of Rhubarb Media). . . . . . . . . 308 Photo of Serge’s workstation on the Sargas Silent Floor. (Photo: Serge) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316 Photo of Thomas’ workplace in the Tabit Classic Office. (Photo: Thomas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 Photo of Theo’s workspace: Left: Tabit Creative Space, right: Classic Office. (Photos: Theo). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 Conceptual framing—locating chapter 11 (gray marking). (Own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 Qualities of social relations in the CWS. (Own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 Coworker in the Tabit Creative Space (Photo: Timo). . . . . . . . . 341 Helping in the Tabit Creative Space (Photo: Thorsten). . . . . . . . 343 Section of staircase Sargas (Photo: Sandro) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 Detailed photo of coffee cup in the Sargas Café (Photo: Stefan). 357 Photo sink kitchen area Tabit Creative Space (Photo: Till). . . . . 367 Section of Sargas Garden (Photo: Serge) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407 Football table in the Tabit Creative Space (Photo: Tom). . . . . . . 408 Sofa corner in the Tabit Creative Space (Photo: Tabea) . . . . . . . 423 Tensions in everyday CWS life and how to deal with them. (Own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426

List of Figures

Fig. 14.1 Fig. 14.2 Fig. 14.3 Fig. 14.4

XVII

The role of atmospheres in everyday CWS life. (Own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431 Coworking atmospheres as multiply mediating entities. (Own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438 Co-curating of atmospheres by the coworkers. (Own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446 The roles of coworkers. (Own illustration). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 8.1 Table 9.1 Table 9.2 Table 10.1 Table 11.1 Table 12.1

Territories and their occupation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Research interest, data collection and analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Overview of the interviewed users in Tabit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Overview of the interviewed users in the Sargas. . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Category system user interviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Work settings concentrated mental work and interaction in comparison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 Motives and advantages for working in the CWS. . . . . . . . . . . . 247 How the coworkers became aware of the CWS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 General space preference for everyday work: user types.. . . . . . 330 The significance of the CWS as a community space: user types (Own illustration). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 Experienced social formations in the CWS context (Own illustration). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378

XIX

1

Introduction

“The most important thing for a coworking space is its atmosphere. The right atmosphere decides, similar to a club or a bar, about the success and failure of the place. This has nothing to do with how trendy or hip a place is. A place simply has to be coherent and authentic and send a clear message.” (Welter and Olma 2011, p. 75)

Coworking Spaces (CWSs) have gained increasing importance worldwide in recent years. These community-oriented workspaces, which are flexibly used by workers from different corporate affiliations, are an expression of the fact that physical-material spaces and the places associated with them have not lost their importance due to digitalization and flexibilization of work (cf. Petendra 2015). This became particularly clear with the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, which led to a digitization push in the world of work. Working from home became the norm overnight—also in traditional organizations, where mobile-flexible work and working from home were only a lived reality in a few areas until then. Workers who previously commuted to the office every day now worked from home and could experience the associated advantages. These were found in a gain of time due to eliminated commuting, a better balance of work and private life, or increased concentration on work due to less distraction. But also the disadvantages of homeworking became noticeable: Not everyone had a professionally equipped office in their own home, which also resulted in improvised transformations of private spaces into work spaces. Due to the closures of schools and daycare centers, parents faced the double challenge of organizing work and childcare at home. In addition to the blurring of work and private life, working

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 A. Bernhardt, Coworking Atmospheres, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41193-0_1

1

2

1 Introduction

from home for weeks can also be associated with isolation. All these are reasons that motivated people to visit a CWS even before the pandemic.1 The crisisrelated openness for decentralized work outside company headquarters and the challenges of working from home were also popular topics in public discussion. And also the CWS operators themselves were strongly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. They had to adapt the CWS premises and their offer to the respective legal requirements (no events, appropriate safety distances or plexiglass partitions between the workplaces, person restrictions, hygiene measures, etc.) or were forced to temporarily close. And even after the “lockdown” in spring 2020, when CWSs slowly reopened their doors and more and more people returned from their home offices, the precautions to avoid infections were still inherent in the spatial arrangements. This made it difficult or impossible to implement practices that are self-evident for CWSs, such as joining an already occupied table, as presented in this work. At the same time, the way CWSs dealt with the COVID-19 pandemic again shows the special feature of coworking, namely that it is not only about spaces of work, but also about spaces of communitization. Accordingly, the importance of the coworking community is high, which was maintained in the virtual space independently of physical-material spaces during the time of the “extraordinary situation” and whose relevance became particularly clear. Thus, CWSs established digital meetings and offers for their members, such as joint virtual coffee breaks, online yoga or presentations. In addition, CWS operators from all over the world exchanged ideas in various online formats about how CWSs deal with the pandemic and how they could emerge even stronger from the crisis. The fact that many companies opened up for decentralized work and that through the COVID-19 pandemic a large number of workers have gained experience with working from home and have experienced not only advantages, but also the disadvantages, represents an opportunity for CWSs: They can be alternative workplaces that are located near the place of residence, save commuting time and still create a separation of the places of work and non-work. They are office workspaces that have appropriate professional infrastructure. They are also spaces of community that offer events or have social meeting points where coworkers can come into contact with each other. Although the COVID-19 pandemic showed that coworking can also take place in the virtual space, where communal atmospheres can arise just as in the analog space, it draws attention to the importance of the physical-material office workspaces of CWSs and the associ-

1 Cf.

Sect.  2.3 and for the present study Sect. 9.1.

1 Introduction

3

ated places and the peculiarities of the spatial atmospheres that arise there, which were missing during the time of the lockdowns. Why is an investigation of the spatial atmospheres of CWSs of interest? CWSs are not only office workspaces, but their organizational concept also gives a special importance to communality, social relations and interactions in the CWS, unlike in conventional office workspaces. This new quality of community in the context of workspaces is expressed, according to the initial thesis of this work, in the spatial atmospheres (as well as in the spatial arrangements and the spatial action itself). This is often noticeable already when entering such places, whose atmospheres often differ from those of conventional offices: The spaces appear warm, inviting, cozy or stimulating and evoke feelings of well-being. These “new” atmospheres of work, which are communal at the same time, are also repeatedly addressed in the self-presentations of the CWSs and in the media discourse on coworking. It is obvious, however, that not all people experience such spatial arrangements in the same way: Because what evokes positive feelings in one person and motivates them to work, arouses negative emotions in another or is perceived as distracting. The voluntariness with which (laptop) workers2 often (although not always) choose a CWS as a workplace seems to be relevant in this respect, insofar as it results in a fit between spatial atmosphere and taste preferences and needs of the work subjects. As Tonia Welter and Sebastian Olma (2011) address in the opening quote, coherent and authentic spatial atmospheres are of particular relevance to be successful as a CWS, i.e. to attract a sufficient number of people as coworkers. The quote from Welter and Olma is from a time when coworking was still a relatively young phenomenon. It can be assumed that with the increasing growth and differentiation of the coworking market, coworking atmospheres are more important than ever today. The above quote sums up what this work will discuss in detail. For the present work, the following questions arise: What are those “right atmospheres” characterized by? How are they created? How are they experienced by the users as such or rather, how do coworkers create their own atmospheres that feel right for them? With regard to the sociomaterial spaces and atmospheres of coworking and their experience or appropriation, this work refers to various cultural turns in social and cultural sciences since the beginning of this millennium (cf. Bachmann 2009; Reckwitz 2016, p. 164): In the course of the Spatial Turn (cf. Döring and

2 Laptop

workers are the main user group of CWSs. However, CWSs are not limited to laptop workers. Depending on the orientation and equipment, people also work without laptops in CWSs.

4

1 Introduction

Thielmann 2009; Kajetzke and Schroer 2012), space has become a significant category, with the Material Turn highlighting the increased importance of artifacts and things. The Emotional or Affective Turn finally describes the growing interest in emotions and affects. Thus, the present work considers CWSs as socially constructed spaces, which consist of living beings and things in their materiality and symbolism as spatial elements and which are affectively tuned in their effect. Specifically, the relational concept of space by Martina Löw (2008, 2015) is adopted, according to which spaces are constituted in action. Here, atmospheres are central: They are understood, following Löw and Gernot Böhme (2001, 2013a, 2013b, 2016a), as the connection between perceived spatial arrangements and perceiving subjects. They represent on the one hand the outward effect of the spatial arrangements. On the other hand, they are felt in the bodily presence of the perceiving subjects, influence their own states of mind and further (space-)action. Thus, coworkers develop their own spaces in their everyday work, whereby being able to sense spaces is not insignificant: Where do I feel comfortable? Where can I work well, where not? What do I need to work well? Which atmospheres make me creative and which make me concentrated? With such a concept of space and atmospheres, which not only considers the spatial arrangements and their effect, but also the constitution of spaces and atmospheres by the coworkers, the duality of space (Giddens 1988; Löw 2015) is taken into account. The aim of this work is to comprehensively analyze the role of spatial atmospheres in the context of CWSs and to shed light on the special importance of community in the context of these workspaces. Specifically, on the one hand, it is asked how typical spatial arrangements of CWSs and the associated atmospheres can be characterized. This is done with regard to the fact that CWSs are work and community spaces, which are curated3. Here, it is explored what coworking looks like in everyday life and the spaces and atmospheres in their composition are examined more closely. On the other hand, and here lies the focus of the analysis, the perspective of the users of CWSs as space-acting subjects is reconstructed and the question is illuminated, how they develop the spaces of CWSs as work or community spaces for themselves.

3 Curating

is a term from the art field and encompasses different activities in relation to the mediation of art in the context of exhibitions: Administrative and organizational tasks, as well as creative and interpretive skills of selecting, assembling, arranging and presenting objects (von Bismarck 2004, p. 109, 2012, p. 47). The meaning of curating in the context of CWSs—a term that is also used in the field itself—is explained in Sect. 2.2.4. The terms of curators and curating are further elaborated in Sect. 3.2.2.

1 Introduction

5

Although the importance of coworking atmospheres has been recognized in relation to the attractiveness of CWSs in recent research (cf. de Vaujany et al. 2019; Jakonen et al. 2017; Orel and Alonso Almeida 2019; Waters-Lynch and Duff 2019), no comprehensive study of the spaces and atmospheres of CWSs has been conducted so far, taking into account the subject perspective in particular, as it has been done in this work. The perspective of the CWS users as shaped by the spaces and at the same time shaping the spaces is particularly fruitful to illuminate the phenomenon of atmospheres in the CWS. In the interplay of subjects and spatial arrangements, this work also reveals tensions that arise from the coexistence of different social logics of (self-organized) community and the relationship between customers andservice providers in everyday CWS life. In dealing with the tensions, this work will highlight the special value of atmospheres in everyday CWS life. With regard to the methodology, the present work marks a way to make a complex phenomenon that is difficult to grasp such as that of the atmosphere and the associated action and appropriation of spaces empirically accessible. To investigate the questions raised in more detail, an ethnographically oriented, method-plural research design was pursued, in which two case studies in urban CWSs were at the center. Various data collection methods were used, such as participant observation or observing participation in the CWSs, semi-structured interviews with the coworkers and members of the operating teams, as well as collecting existing documents from the field. In the interviews with the coworkers, photographs were used, which had been taken by the interviewees in advance of the interview. Although the two case studies represent the empirical core of this work, the insights gained are much more extensive: To gain a broader understanding of the field of study, I visited 95 other CWSs or related spatial concepts at 31 different locations in eleven countries, worked for a longer time myself in CWSs and participated in national and international coworking conferences and barcamps. The verbal data material was coded and evaluated according to the content-structuring qualitative content analysis. In addition, selected interview passages, photos, and the combination of images and corresponding interview passages were interpreted more deeply hermeneutically. Through the triangulation of different methods, data types and sources, a holistic view of the phenomenon of atmosphere in the context of CWS office workspaces was provided. The work is divided into three major parts. Part I deals with CWSs being theobject of study and its classification in the current developments of the working world as well as the theoretical framework of this work. In detail, Chap. 2 goes to the bottom of the phenomenon of CWSs, their background and their characterization with reference to existing scientific literature. Chap. 3 deals with the central theoretical reference concepts of this work. Thus, the terms space and

6

1 Introduction

atmosphere as well as the different perspectives on them are examined more closely. In addition, the theoretical foundations for the consideration of CWSs as spaces of communitization are laid. With this theoretical understanding, office workspaces and CWSs in particular are once again viewed anew in relation to the spaces and atmospheres as well as to community in Chap. 4 and the state of research is reflected. The first part on the object of study, theory and research status concludes with the presentation of the own conceptual framing for the analysis of CWS spaces and atmospheres as well as the concretization of the research questions (Chap. 5). Part II or Chap. 6 describes the empirical study in detail: Specifically, the methodological approach is explained in more detail, the individual methods of data collection and analysis are elucidated and the two case studies of CWSs are presented. The results of the empirical study are presented in Part III. In the case portraits of the examined CWSs (Chap. 7) the concrete spatial arrangements and atmospheres of coworking and their effects are worked out. As a result of this chapter, two typical work settings are shown, which are accompanied by certain rules, patterns of space use and atmospheres. Subsequently, in Chap. 8 it is analyzed what coworking means in everyday life. In this regard, practices of maintaining distance or creating closeness are important. In addition, for the respective work settings, spatial arrangements and associated atmospheres are analyzed in detail in their composition. With regard to the special importance of communal atmospheres, spatially independent practices and rituals are also presented, which reinforce the communal atmospheres in everyday CWS life. While in Chap. 8 CWS spaces and atmospheres are considered in their composition, Chap. 9–12 deal with the spaces and atmospheres from the perspective of the users as spatially acting subjects. First, it is traced how the coworkers got to work in the examined CWSs and what role the atmospheres of the places played in this (Chap. 9). Subsequently, it is examined how the users appropriate the CWS spaces for themselves as spaces of work (Chap. 10). Chapter 11 deals with the subjective meaning of the CWS spaces as spaces of communitization. Consideration of the subject perspective of the CWS users is concluded by the elaboration of three typical subjectively experienced social formations in relation to CWSs: The self-organized community, the relationship between customers and service providers- and the curated community (Chap. 12). The different social formations are the starting point for Chap. 13: Thus, different social logics are also applied in everyday CWS life. As shown in this chapter, the social formations of CWSs partly have the character of a (self-organized) communitization and partly that of a societization (in terms of coworking as a

1 Introduction

7

service). The coexistence of communitization and societization leads to predominantly minor tensions in everyday CWS life, which are discussed in more detail in this section. It is also elaborated how CWS operators and coworkers deal with them. In the final consideration in Chap. 14 the role of atmospheres in the context of CWSs is summarized, conclusions are drawn and implications for practice and further research are named. The chapter concludes with an overall reflection of the study and an outlook on future development of CWSs.

Part I Subject, Theoretical Reference Concepts and State of Research

2

Background and Characterization of Coworking Spaces

“Do you work for yourself from home? Do you miss community and structure? Join Spiral Muse and Brad Neuberg in creating a new kind of work environment for free spirits!” (Neuberg 2005)

CWSs are a relatively young phenomenon that has experienced a dynamic development within fifteen years. The first CWSs emerged in the mid-2000s in the urban centers of the USA and Europe as a response to the transformation of the world of work and the associated flexibilization of work and employment. Although similar models were founded in different places, such as Schraubenfabrik in Vienna in 2002 (as a “community center for entrepreneurs” (Foertsch and Cagnol 2013))1 or St. Oberholz in Berlin in 2005 (as a café with free internet access as a magnet for the digital bohemia (cf. Friebe and Lobo 2007, pp. 150– 152))2, the founding of the so-called Spiral Muse Coworking Group on August 9, 2005 in San Francisco (Neuberg 2005) marks the birth of coworking in the history of coworking (cf. Foertsch and Cagnol 2013):3 This “community office space for writers and programmers” (Neuberg n.d.), which was initiated by programmer

1 Schraubenfabrik

still exists today and presents itself on its website as the “mother of coworking” (Schraubenfabrik 2020). 2 St. Oberholz also still exists today and has expanded its offer to coworking: In addition to several CWSs, it also offers consulting on coworking and new work (St. Oberholz 2020). 3 The 9th of August is celebrated as the “Coworking Day” as the anniversary of coworking. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 A. Bernhardt, Coworking Atmospheres, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41193-0_2

11

12

2  Background and Characterization of Coworking Spaces

Brad Neuberg, was organized as a regular event on two days a week in a healing center (cf. ibid.). After a year, the project was terminated and replaced by Hat Factory in San Francisco as the first permanent CWS that used the term coworking (Foertsch and Cagnol 2013). In the following years and favored by the global financial and economic crisis from 2007, coworking experienced a rapid spread, initially in the urban metropolises of the global north. In 2007, Citizen Space in Zurich was opened and in 2009 Betahaus in Berlin – both the first CWSs of their country, as indicated by themselves on their websites (Coworking Switzerland n.d.; cf. Foertsch and Cagnol 2013).4 While there were around 600 CWSs and 21,000 coworkers worldwide in October 2010 (Foertsch 2014a), by the end of 2015 there were already an estimated nearly 8900 CWSs and 545,000 coworkers worldwide (Foertsch 2019). In 2020, coworking became increasingly established with an estimated over 19,400 CWSs worldwide and almost 2 million coworkers (CoworkingResources and Coworker.com 2020).5

4  Both

CWSs still exist and have meanwhile several locations (Citizen Space: within Zurich, Betahaus: Europe-wide), whereby the headquarters of Betahaus Berlin has changed in the meantime. 5 The estimate by CoworkingResources and Coworker.com (2020) takes the COVID-19 pandemic into account and forecasts a slow growth for 2020, which will increase again from 2021. For the year 2024, a doubling of the CWSs worldwide to over 40,000 is predicted (ibid.). Another estimate by Carsten Foertsch (2019), who was involved in the CWS industry magazine Deskmag and the Global Coworking Survey, which was conducted annually until the beginning of 2019, predicts similar numbers with 22,400 CWSs and over 2 million coworkers worldwide by the end of 2019. Thus, both sources point to a similar tendency. These estimates are nevertheless to be treated with caution, as they are non-scientific sources and the procedures of the estimates are not exactly explained. Foertsch (2019) states that the calculation is based on the results of the Global Coworking Survey. In the case of the Global Coworking Growth Study 2020 by CoworkingResources and Coworker. com (2020), a knowledge platform for CWSs and a CWS booking platform, internal data are used: The estimates are based on data on announcements of CWS openings by CoworkingResources and on the average annual growth of the registered CWSs by Coworker.com. For the forecast of the CWSs, additionally undefined data from CoworkingResources are used. For the coworking numbers, additionally estimates on the growth of seats/requests based on data from Coworker.com for 2020 are used. The interpretation of such data is also difficult due to different definitions of what a CWS is and thus blurring boundaries to related office space concepts and different instances of assignment (self- vs. external assessment). In the case of the Global Coworking Survey, it is emphasized that the statistics only include CWSs and not business centers, coffee shops, etc. (Foertsch 2019). However, the classification as a CWS is done by the respondents as self-assessment and not based on a catalog of criteria.

2  Background and Characterization of Coworking Spaces

13

That the spread of CWSs is a long-term development and not a coworking bubble (cf. Gandini 2015) becomes clear in various ways: Firstly, in the worldwide spread of CWSs, which is no longer limited to the global north (cf. Merkel 2015). Secondly, the establishment of coworking is reflected in the networking activities of the actors beyond the individual CWS and a related institutionalization in the form of associations as interest representations for CWSs6 as well as the organization of coworking conferences and unconferences or BarCamps7, which are on regional, national or international levels, as well as networking in virtual space via social media, websites and platforms. Thirdly, CWSs are no longer just an urban phenomenon: There are also more and more CWSs in smaller cities and rural areas (cf. Fuzi 2015) (and related initiatives to promote rural coworking) as well as in holiday destinations. Fourthly, a specialization and differentiation of various CWS concepts can be observed (cf. in detail Sect. 2.2). Fifthly, the establishment of coworking is also evident in the fact that CWSs have become a customer group of their own: Various “coworking tools” (cf. Coworking Wiki n.d.) and services have emerged in the environment of CWSs, such as software solutions for managing CWSs or coworking visas for users (i.e. offers that enable access to several CWSs). Also, services that are designed for companies have discovered CWSs as a customer segment, such as locking systems or printer solutions. Sixthly, more and more actors, such as companies, banks, universities, libraries or real estate providers, have recognized the importance of CWSs and try to operate CWSs themselves. While the target group of CWSs was initially focused on solo self-employed or freelancers8 and start-ups, large com-

6 For

example, on a European level, there is the European Coworking Assembly and in Switzerland and Germany, there are national coworking associations with Coworking Switzerland and German Coworking Federation e. V. respectively. 7 For example, on a European level, the Coworking Europe Conference, in Germany the Cowork and in Switzerland the Coworking Switzerland Meetup, which take place annually. A BarCamp or an Unconference is an “unconventional conference format” (Klemmt 2017, p. 121), which does not provide a predefined conference program (ibid.). Instead, the conference program and its contents are organized ad hoc and on site in co-presence by the participants themselves, by proposing topics for individual content blocks, so-called sessions (cf. ibid.). The BarCamp format and its principles (communication at eye level, joint participation and openness (ibid., p. 122)) fit well with coworking and its represented values. 8 The terms solo self-employed and freelancers are used synonymously in this work. They refer to self-employed people who run their business without dependent employees (Maier and Ivanov 2018, p. 13). Solo self-employment is in turn characteristic of “new” self-

14

2  Background and Characterization of Coworking Spaces

panies have meanwhile also discovered the CWS concept for themselves: They send, for example, their employees to CWSs or they integrate company-owned CWSs into their own organization, to benefit from the advantages of coworking (cf. Bauer et al. 2014; Josef and Back 2016, 2018). Finally, the interest in the topic of coworking has also grown from a scientific perspective. Coworking has meanwhile been researched from different disciplinary perspectives with different thematic focuses (cf. Ivaldi et al. 2018). All this indicates that CWSs have become a “new normal”, as Ivaldi et al. (2018, p. 236) put it. Nevertheless, coworking is a phenomenon whose development is still very dynamic and whose understanding remains ambiguous. Sometimes the flexibility of the concept, the community orientation or the specific aesthetics that are associated with CWSs are emphasized to define the core of CWSs. This chapter serves to characterize CWSs and their users involving existing research.9 First, the changes in the world of work that have prepared the ground for the emergence and dynamic development of CWSs are discussed in more detail.

2.1 Coworking Spaces as a Response to the Challenges of the World of Work The following section discusses in more detail those processes that have favored the emergence and spread of CWSs. Advancing globalization, reorganization of companies, associated with processes such as decentralization and outsourcing of work processes, tertiarization and flexibilization as well as aestheticization and the increasing importance of knowledge and project work represent developments that entail that work requirements and conditions have changed (cf. Klug et al. 2005; Minssen 2012; Ruiner and Wilkesmann 2016). Blurring and subjectification of work are concepts from sociology of work and industry that illustrate the consequences of the above-mentioned developments. CWSs are on the one hand

employed. “New” self-employed differ from “old” i.e. conventional self-employed by the following characteristics: They have “above-average educational qualifications, include more women and migrants, develop new activity profiles and business ideas and often work as solo entrepreneurs from home” (Merkel and Oppen 2013, p. 3). 9 CWS research is as dynamic as the field itself. Therefore, the presentation is a snapshot.

2.1  Coworking Spaces as a Response to the Challenges of the World …

15

an expression of these processes as flexible and often aestheticized workspaces. At the same time, they can be understood as a response to the challenges of these developments for the subjects, as will become clear in this chapter.

2.1.1 Change of the World of Work Coworking is the result of further developments in the field of gainful work that have been taking place since the 1970s and find their expression in social or capitalism concepts such as neoliberalism, post-industrial society, post-Fordism, cognitive (Moulier-Boutang 2001), flexible (Sennett 1998) or aesthetic capitalism (Böhme 2016a; Reckwitz 2014) and thus emphasize a certain aspect (cf. Prinz 2012, p. 249). They characterize a shift of the economic paradigm away from a bureaucratic-rationalized or standardized work culture (ibid.). First of all, the tertiarization of employment as a profound social development can be mentioned, i.e. the development of employment from the production to the service sector, which has changed work activities and contents as well as requirements for workers (Ruiner and Wilkesmann 2016, p. 63). In this context, the importance of knowledge and knowledge work increased (cf. ibid., p. 65 ff.). Secondly, the spread of information and communication technologies (ICT) and, related to this, the digitization, which is characterized by the fact that analog structures, human actions or knowledge stocks are transformed into digitized information (Papsdorf 2019, p. 19), represent further significant social developments. As a result, existing occupations have changed and new occupational profiles and fields of activity have emerged (cf. Papsdorf 2019) as well as work models, such as crowdworking or crowdsourcing (cf. Leimeister et al. 2016. Papsdorf 2009; Pongratz and Bormann 2017) or the so-called sharing or collaborative economy (cf. Gruszka 2017; Hamari et al. 2016; Hertwig and Papsdorf 2017; with reference to CWSs Reuschl and Bouncken 2017). Moreover, spatial distances lose their significance due to digitalization, which enables decentralized work as well as networked work and cooperation in real time (Klug et al. 2005, p. 16). This leads to a third important point: The change of work structures is also reflected in a flexibilization of employment relationships, which expresses itself on different levels temporally, spatially, content-wise and contractually (Ruiner and Wilkesmann 2016, p. 93). Contractually, in terms of work organization, flexibilization is expressed in the deregulation and increasing importance of atypical forms of employment far from the (permanent full-time) standard employment relationship: In addition to part-time work, temporary work, marginal and fixedterm employment, solo self-employment is also counted among them (cf. Ruiner

16

2  Background and Characterization of Coworking Spaces

and Wilkesmann 2016, p. 105 f.)10. The reduction of hierarchies at company level is expressed in the increased importance of project-based work (cf. Boltanski and Chiapello 2006) or in new concepts of work organization such as lean and agile methods (cf. Boes et al. 2016). The erosion of spatial structures is evident at company level in flexible office space concepts (cf. Sect. 2.1.3) or the outsourcing of office space to flexible office work space concepts, such as business centers or CWSs. Expressions of the spatial-temporal flexibilization are decentralized work or more precisely telecommuting (cf. Kleemann 2003, 2005) and working from home. Fourthly, aestheticization of the world of work as an expression of a comprehensive social structural change can also be observed (Reckwitz 2014). Aestheticization generally refers, according to Andreas Reckwitz (2014), to “the expansion and intensification of the aesthetic at the expense of a non-aesthetic” (p. 22), whereby the aesthetic refers to “self-dynamic processes of sensual perception” (p. 23, emphasis in the original).11 This also includes the world of work: Be it the production of the aesthetic in the context of aesthetic work (for more details see Sect. 3.2.2) or the aestheticization of office work spaces (Sect. 2.1.3). How these developments are reflected at the level of the spatial organization of office work spaces is discussed in more detail below.

2.1.2 Transformation of Office Workspaces This and the following chapter now focus on office workspaces and examine their development in relation to office architecture as well as in terms of space use and aesthetics. In doing so, the present chapter traces the change of office forms12: This is the material expression of the changing world of work (cf. for

10 Atypical

employment is associated with a higher risk of precarious employment, which is objectively characterized by low incomes, low employability, low employment stability and/or lack of social security (cf. Ruiner and Wilkesmann 2016, p. 107). 11 Aesthetic perception, according to Reckwitz, is autotelic and self-referential as well as detached from purposive-rational action (Reckwitz 2014, p. 23). This does not mean, however, that it cannot serve higher purposes, such as economic interests or one’s own goals, as the phenomenon of the aestheticization of office work spaces clearly shows (cf. Sect. 2.1.3 below). 12 While the expression “office form” refers to the physical-material space, the term office concept refers to the usage strategies of office space (Petendra 2015, p. 73). The office form as a structural structure and the organizational form as a usage concept are mutually dependent (ibid., p. 74).

2.1  Coworking Spaces as a Response to the Challenges of the World …

17

the following explanations of this chapter mainly Fritz 1982; as well as Petendra 2015, p. 57 ff., who refers to Fritz). The first spaces of mental work emerged in the course of the emergence of simple accounting in the late Middle Ages: With the office and the chancellery, the separation of the spaces of mental and manual work or of work and private life went hand in hand (Petendra 2015, p. 58). These pre-industrial office forms are characterized by a division of labor that is organized in the near space, which enables visibility, which establishes control, but also clarity over the work processes (ibid., p. 59). Office and chancellery are the forerunners of the emergence of the cell office in the fifteenth century, which is still widespread today (ibid., p. 58 f.). Another form of organization of office space, which came with industrialization, is the office hall or the mass work hall, which brought with it rationalized spatial control techniques, a stronger division of labor and standardization of work processes (Fritz 1982, p. 96; Prinz 2012, p. 260). In the taylorist scientific management, the “disciplining of office work” was perfected (Prinz 2012, p. 260). The design of office furniture and interiors was based on the principle of higher efficiency and functionality (ibid.). This was accompanied by a taylorization of body movements, i.e. the “rationalization of movement sequences in a body-centered, graspable limited work area of individuals” (Fritz 1982, p. 102). The flat, tayloristically organized writing or sorting tables and their homogeneous, narrow arrangement were intended to lead to increased clarity and order of the office spaces and workplaces (Petendra 2015, p. 62), so that the workers could be hierarchically and efficiently supervised (Prinz 2012, p. 260). The spatial organization of the office hall also had an impact on sensory perception: Visually, according to Hans-Joachim Fritz (1982, p. 98), a “homogenization of the visual space” took place to support work supervision. In terms of smell and hearing, an “anonymization of the odor space” (ibid., p. 107) as well as the “sound space” (ibid., p. 109) could be observed. This was associated with noise and odor nuisance, which, in addition to the physical effects of the taylorist workplace, led to the abandonment of this office form (Petendra 2015, p. 65). In the form of the open-plan office, the office hall experienced a new edition and has continued to evolve until today (ibid., p. 66). After the Second World War, an improvement of working conditions was sought as part of the humanization movement, which led to a further differentiation of office forms (Petendra 2015, p. 66). In the 1960s, open-plan offices with so-called cubicles became popular in the USA, i.e. partition systems that were supposed to provide workers with protection from visual and acoustic disturbances (ibid., p. 67). The cubicles thus created the possibility for (limited) individual design and some privacy (Prinz 2012, p. 262). In Europe, there was

18

2  Background and Characterization of Coworking Spaces

a return to the cellular office and later a further development into the combi and group office (Petendra 2015, p. 66, cf. the explanations in the following chapter). At the end of the 1950s, open-plan offices also emerged here: initially as office halls with orthogonal arrangements and then as freely organized office landscapes, in which plants, shelves and room dividers instead of partitions divided the space (Petendra 2015, p. 68). Together with carpets, pictures or lively colors, the spatial arrangements were supposed to create coziness and intimacy and the loose distribution of furniture was supposed to loosen up status differences (Prinz 2012, p. 262). While the US-American cubicle remained attached to the Taylorist standardization, the European further development with the office landscape is an expression of the beginning aestheticization13 and flexibilization of office work spaces (cf. Prinz 2012). The disadvantages of open-plan offices, however, are not eliminated by either office form (cf. Petendra 2015, p. 67 ff.).14 In the last decades, and especially since the 1990s, there has been an increased flexibilization and aestheticization of office work spaces, although the Taylorist office program is still dominant (cf. Prinz 2012, p. 262; Spath et al. 2011, p. 78). The following chapter will characterize the office work spaces of today in more detail.

2.1.3 Today’s Office Work Spaces: Traditional or Flexible and Aestheticized This chapter now deals with the office work spaces of today. Before going into the flexible and aestheticized postmodern office work spaces, four typical basic architectural forms of today’s office work spaces are presented below: the cellular office, the open-plan office, the group office and the combi office (cf. Petendra 2015; Spath et al. 2011; Staniek 2005). First, the cell office as a classic office form is still popular: It is characterized by a series of single and multi-person offices (with two to six workstations) that

13 The

term landscape alone already refers to a turn towards an aestheticizing design of work spaces (Prinz 2012, p. 262). 14 In this regard, Fritz (1982, p. 135) argues that the open-plan office is merely a “workphysiologically and psychotechnically modified mass work hall of office work”: “All technical, spatial-organizational and spatial-aesthetic measures for modifying and qualitatively transforming the traditional work hall deliberately change and conceal the appearances of the unequal power relations within the bureaucratic large-scale enterprises” (Fritz 1982, p. 135).

2.1  Coworking Spaces as a Response to the Challenges of the World …

19

are connected by a central corridor (Spath et al. 2011, p. 78 f.; Staniek 2005, p. 57). It offers individually adaptable workspaces, which in the variant of the single-person cell office provide optimal conditions for individual and concentrated work (Petendra 2015, p. 69; Spath et al. 2011, p. 78). The two-person cell office, on the other hand, is considered the office form with the lowest productivity and is not recommended in this regard, unless the office neighbors work together (Spath et al. 2011, p. 79 f.). Second, the open-plan office, which provides workstations for 20 to 100 or more employees (Staniek 2005, p. 60), and still today has to cope with the disadvantages of low individualizability and high acoustic and climatic loads in addition to the advantages of economy, collaboration and flexibility (Spath et al. 2011, p. 85). Typical today is therefore the reduction to “small units of a few hundred square meters”, which blurs the boundary to the group office (ibid.). Third, the group office is a further development of the openplan office and is smaller with workstations for six to 20 or 25 employees (Spath et al. 2011, p. 83; Staniek 2005, p. 57, 61). The smaller area leads to better light and climatic conditions (Staniek 2005, p. 57). The users of a group office usually belong to an organizational unit or a work group, which means that the copresence has advantages for communication and team building (ibid.), although the disadvantages of the open-plan office are also present in this office form (cf. ibid., p. 61). The fourth office type is the so-called combi office, which combines single or multi-person cells (with comparatively small floor space, also called think cell or work cubicle) with a communal area, the so-called communication or multifunction zone or also all-space (which includes shared infrastructure such as copier, archive, filing, coffee kitchen or meeting room), and uses transparent glass walls as a connection (Petendra 2015, p. 70; Spath et al. 2011, p. 80 f.; Staniek 2005, p. 58). This office form is supposed to combine the advantages of cell and group office by creating conditions for concentrated individual work as well as for interactions in project or team work and corresponds, according to Brigitte Petendra (2015, p. 71), to “the demands of modern office work as knowledge work”. The combi office was further developed in terms of flexible usage concepts as the so-called business club, which, similar to the open-space office presented below, has a more diverse range of workstations, more group workstations and alternative workstation types and zones, such as lounges or reading areas (Petendra 2015, p. 71; Staniek 2005, p. 58 f.). This office form is usually combined with a flexible usage concept (Staniek 2005, p. 59). The following will now address flexibilization in relation to office use, and then take a look at the aestheticization of office workspaces. With the flexibilization of the working world, the requirements for the symbolic-material spatial arrangements also change in terms of (multi-)functionality

20

2  Background and Characterization of Coworking Spaces

and flexibility in the use of space . Contrary to traditional office forms, which are shaped by bureaucratic and taylorist structures and rely on systematic control, division of labor and hierarchies, flexible office workspaces are characterized by open, networked, decentralized spatial structures, flat hierarchies and a high degree of technologization (Petendra 2015, p. 79). While the last section dealt with the office forms as physical-material spatial arrangements of classical and flexible work, the concept of use in relation to the flexible organization of work now comes into focus. In the office concept of the non-territorial office, the flexible organization of work is particularly evident (Petendra 2015, p. 74). The core of non-territorial office concepts is the abolition of the fixed assignment of workplace and workers (ibid., p. 40). This is done against the background that, on the one hand, work is done more flexibly in terms of time or part-time (and also absence times such as illness or vacation are taken into account) and that, on the other hand, work is done more flexibly in terms of space at different locations, namely in addition to the office workplace also at customers, in the home office or in meeting rooms (cf. Petendra 2015, p. 74 f.; Spath et al. 2011, p. 86). In addition, the idea is based on the fact that “a situation-appropriate work ambiance should be sought depending on the specific task” (Spath et al. 2011, p. 86). Thus, the non-territorial office is characterized by the fact that there are fewer workplaces than users (ibid.). This is associated with a depersonalization and deterritorialization of workplaces (Petendra 2015, p. 234) and thus also desk sharing, i.e. sharing of workplaces by different users, as it is also practiced in CWSs. This goes hand in hand with a clean desk policy, i.e. the workplace is left as it was found: depersonalized and “clean”. Work documents can be stored in a caddy or rolling container. In addition to the workplaces, the non-territorial office also involves the joint use of office furniture and work equipment (Spath et al. 2011, p. 86). A prerequisite for this office concept is the digital organization of work documents and processes (cf. Petendra 2015, p. 74; Spath et al. 2011, p. 86). As Petendra (2015, p. 74) rightly criticizes, however, the term non-territorial is misleading, because the places are nevertheless temporarily occupied as territories.15 Petendra (2015) uses instead the term flexible office. She defines this analogously as “a specific organizational form of an office, in which the fixed assignment of employee and workplace is abolished” (ibid., p. 74). Flexible office concepts are not bound to a structural office form (Petendra 2015, p. 74; Spath et al. 2011,

15 Rather,

it is the ideas of dissolution that are reproduced in these flexible office space concepts: “Only the project should be meaningful for office work, not the place where work is done” (Petendra 2015, p. 234).

2.1  Coworking Spaces as a Response to the Challenges of the World …

21

p. 87). However, Dieter Spath, Wilhelm Bauer and Martin Braun (2011, p. 87) recommend a spatial division of areas and explain: “Typical is a mixture of open team areas, closed seclusion and retreat spaces as well as general service zones […]. The scarce supply of workplaces is supplemented by thinker cubicles, business lounges, meeting zones, telecommunication stations, presentation areas or recreation areas, etc.”

Thus, spatial planning for flexible office workspaces relies on different usage possibilities to meet the requirements of the flexible working world: “No longer rigid assignments, but open spaces, changing workstations, increasing space for communication and informal exchange as well as the transparency of work should be promoted” (Petendra 2015, p. 80). Kratzer (2017) refers to such a configuration of the flexible office as open-space office and understands it as “a continuous work landscape with a mixture of open work areas and closed rooms, which meet different requirements depending on the company or activity profile: routine work, concentrated work, communication, relaxation, retreat, etc.” (p. 7). For the open-space office, a combination of individual workstations, communication areas and meeting and retreat spaces is therefore characteristic in terms of the office form (ibid., p. 14).16 Based on the concept of activity based working, the idea here is that modern office work comprises several sub-activities, each with different requirements for the non-human space17 (Becker et al. 2019, p. 265). The workplace, so the assumption, is therefore chosen depending on the respective work requirements and individual needs: “The desk for individual work or the short meeting, the retreat space for concentrated work, the meeting room for the meeting, the counter for the informal exchange, etc.” (Kratzer 2017, p. 16). Open-space offices are supposed to be able to address various challenges of the modern working world: “Open space is supposed to be at the same time a rationalization instrument, the appropriate answer to the challenges of an increasingly complex, boundaryless and digitized working world and a work environment that increases the well-being of the employees and, mediated by that, also the

16 In

this respect, it resembles the Business Club. However, in the open-space office, the mixture of cells and open zone is not predefined. The individual workstations can therefore also be located in the open zone. 17 In the context of this work, I use the term “non-human” to emphasize the elements of space that are not persons, such as office architecture, furniture, artifacts, walls, but also colors or light (see in detail Sect. 3.3.1).

22

2  Background and Characterization of Coworking Spaces

­performance” (Becker et al. 2019, p. 265). Here, the open-space office is not only about the flexible, activity-based use, but it also shows an aesthetic claim in contrast to the old working world, which is linguistically expressed in the term “open space” and in an office design that is modern, open and colorful (cf. ibid., p. 264). Parallel to the increased flexibility in relation to office space concepts and their spatial arrangements, an increasing aestheticization of office workspaces can also be observed (cf. on this and the following statements Bernhardt 2017, p. 53; cf. Biehl-Missal 2011; Prinz 2012). This means that the design of the spaces intends to direct sensory experiences and affects (cf. Prinz 2012, p. 245). It should be noted that office workspaces are generally not affect-neutral places, but always also include sensory qualities that are aesthetically perceptible (ibid.). Thus, the Taylorist-organized mass work hall was also associated with certain sensory sensations among the workers, although these were not necessarily of a positive nature, but on the contrary, as shown, there was odor and noise nuisance. The open-plan office as its further development relied, according to Sophia Prinz (2012, p. 246), on “affect-neutral functionalism”. The symbolic-material design of postmodern office workspaces now experiences a new quality as a strategy for creating a positive sensory experience of the workers: “While the sensorymaterial structure of the panoptic open-plan offices in the organized modernity gave the appearance of a pure affect-neutral functionalism, the creative-economic spatial design systematically incorporates the sensory experience to stimulate the innovation output” (Prinz 2012, p. 246). An “aestheticization of the work environment” in its beginnings is diagnosed by Fritz (1982, p. 136) already in relation to the open-plan offices from the 1950s: Work space aestheticization measures, as Fritz’s diagnosis also already states, are used as a “purpose-bound operating resource” and instrument for influencing the experience and behavior of the workers (ibid.). The aestheticized workspaces are supposed to encourage the workers to self-control (ibid.). To this end, Fritz (1982, p. 137) states: “Aestheticization and greening of the work space, beauty and arranged naturalness are supposed to conceal the existing external constraints and lead to significant selfconstraints through their permanent adaptation pressure.” Nowadays, aestheticized office workspaces serve mainly to instrumentally evoke positive feelings and to promote creativity and innovation. In this regard, atmospheres have a special significance, as Christoph Michels and Chris Steyaert (2018, p. 45) state on the example of the work space design of the company Google:

2.1  Coworking Spaces as a Response to the Challenges of the World …

23

“[I]n the design of workspaces, the importance of atmospheres is reflected, among other things, by the fact that workplace design and star architecture are made into management tools – a development that is driven to the extreme by companies like Google. Thus, Google Zurich offers its employees various atmospheric spaces, from work areas with Switzerland reference, such as igloo or ski lift themes, to cozy libraries with plush sofas, to firemen's poles, on which the employees can slide to the cafeteria and into the coffee break.”

Larissa Pfaller and Basil Wiesse (2018, p. 3) also emphasize that organizations are increasingly oriented towards the feelings and “imagined or actual atmospheric needs” of their employees. Characteristic of this are the “playgroundization” of the office and the importance of moods in relation to the design of workplaces (ibid.). In this regard, artifacts and spatial concepts from other social fields are used, such as the club, the art gallery, the café, the domestic living room or, as in the example of Google and others, the library or the ski lift (Prinz 2012, p. 263). For example, scene-specific interior and codes of skater culture are also used (ibid., p. 264). And also the non-territorial office and the associated desk sharing that have already been introduced are expressions of the aestheticization of work space, as this is intended to stimulate the “inspiring effect of informalized work processes” (ibid., p. 263). Another expression are office work spaces that are oriented towards the “white cube” exhibition concept and are accordingly puristically or minimally furnished, creating a sensual neutrality that is also supposed to be conducive to creativity (ibid.). In the aestheticization of work space, different themes become visible: play and fun at work, employees as consumers, the work place as home or the work place as community (Dale and Burrell 2010, p. 20) (cf. on the latter Sect. 4.3). This goes along with the fact that office work spaces are no longer recognizable as such (ibid.). As Prinz (2012, p. 246) diagnoses, the creative-economic spatial arrangements of post-Fordism that emerged in the 1970s systematically include the sensual experience: “Aestheticization here means a design strategy that aims at a positive sensual experience, in order to create a subjective attitude that is open to affective-creative impulses” (ibid., p. 246, cf. on this and the following explanations Bernhardt 2017, p. 53). According to Prinz, this is an “operationalized aestheticization”, insofar as the intended aesthetic experience is guided by corporate interests: Thus, the sensory perception and the affects of the employees are controlled according to the standards of corporate goals and subject ideals (ibid.). With the aestheticized work space design and a related “targeted symbol and artifact policy” (ibid., p. 263), the aim is to achieve a productivity-enhancing positive experience among the employees and to increase the motivation and identification with the organization (cf. Dale and Burrell 2010, p. 20; Prinz 2012, p. 263;

24

2  Background and Characterization of Coworking Spaces

Reckwitz 2014, p. 182). In this regard, Reckwitz (2014, p. 182) assigns a high importance to the organization-internal design of spatial arrangements, rituals and even the whole organizational culture: It is an expression of the “intelligent design of affectively satisfying atmospheres” (ibid.) and shows the close connection between design and management in the postmodern era.18 In addition to positive states of mind in relation to creativity, motivation and commitment, the spatial arrangements of postmodern flexible office work spaces are also intended to enable and coordinate encounters and collaboration through the spatial design of work (cf. Jakonen et al. 2017, p. 241; Merkel and Oppen 2013, p. 6). As an equivalent to the community managers of the CWSs, there are also sometimes feelgood managers (cf. Wiesse and Pfaller 2018, p. 3) in the corporate context, who act as atmosphere managers and curate the work spaces accordingly (cf. Reckwitz 2014 and the theoretical part Sect. 3.2.4). That the effects intended by the organizational management do not have to coincide with the actual ones will become clear again and again in the course of this work.

2.1.4 Dissolution and Subjectification of Work The flexibilization of work structures is accompanied by phenomena that are discussed in sociology of work and industry as the blurring and subjectification of work. The blurring of work (cf. among others Gottschall and Voß 2003; Kratzer 2003; Minssen 2000; Voß 1998; Voß and Weiß 2005) conceptually captures those developments related to the flexibilization of work, in which comparatively stable and binding structures of regulatory limitation with regard to the organization of work and employment, as described above, come into motion, are thinned out or even dismantled (cf. Voß 1998, p. 474; Voß and Weiß 2005, p. 139 f.). In this respect, the working subjects themselves are required to organize or limit their actions: “As a result of politically or operationally triggered de-structuring of employment relationships, workers must increasingly develop their own work structures in order to obtain new orienting guidelines for action, they must actively re-structure their work” (Voß 1998, p. 476, emphases in the original). For the work subjects, the loss of action-guiding and -enabling structures thus means

18  In

doing so, the creatively working design producers, according to Reckwitz (2014, p. 182), also become design consumers: “A designed work environment in the broadest sense is a prerequisite for post-industrial work” (ibid.).

2.1  Coworking Spaces as a Response to the Challenges of the World …

25

on the one hand a greater and more flexible variety of actions, on the other hand they are now also forced to define and structure their own actions (Voß and Weiß 2005, p. 140). This phenomenon is conceptually captured by the subjectification of work, which expresses the increasing relevance of the subjects or the subjectivity of working persons (ibid.). Frank Kleemann, Ingo Matuschek and G. Günter Voß (2003, p. 62) define the term as follows: “The formulation ‘subjectification of work’ generally denotes in the sociological debate on work an intensification of ‘individual’, i.e. subjectivity-involving interrelations between person and company or company-organized work processes” (Kleemann et al. 2003, p. 62). In doing so, the authors continue, it is a matter of a double process of subjectification, insofar as subjectification has two possible causes of origin: On the one hand, the work subjects have increased subjective demands on the work, on the other hand, the changed organizational structures require the increased contribution of subjective performances (ibid.). The subjectification of work thus expresses an ambivalence: Although the subjects are provided with extended opportunities, especially to shape their own actions themselves, and thus gain the possibility of increased freedom and self-development (Voß and Weiß 2005, p. 140; 148). At the same time, however, they are also forced to shape their own actions and are thus subject to the compulsion of extended self-responsibility and self-organization (ibid.). This entails dangers of overburdening, social detachment and thus also blurring of one`s own boundaries, self-alienation as well as self-exploitation (ibid., p. 148) up to psychological illnesses such as burnout or depression (cf. Voß and Weiß 2014). In order to cope with the demands of the modern work and life world, various subjective competencies such as creativity, innovativeness, self and social competence, technology and media competence or self-care and not least emotionality (Voß and Weiß 2014, p. 45) become increasingly important. In the subjectification discourse that has taken place in sociology of work and industry since the 1980s, there are different uses of the term subjectification (cf. Voß and Weiß 2005, pp. 140–142). The understanding of a compensatory subjectification emphasizes that with increasing automation, the subjectivity of the workers does not become meaningless, but rather gains in importance, in order to handle the dynamics of technical devices and systems (ibid., p. 141). Two further uses of the term subjectification refer to the cultural significance: On the one hand, the normative subjectification, which emerged in the 1970s/1980s as a result of the change in work values, which can be understood as a “socioculturally induced process of an increasingly self-willed formulation and demand of meaning and self-realization claims on the work activity” (Kleemann et al. 2003, p. 88). The normative subjectification is expressed in the self-understanding of

26

2  Background and Characterization of Coworking Spaces

many coworkers and operators and is also evident in the coworking discourse, when the meaning and self-realization at work are emphasized. In addition, there is a current cultural use of the term subjectification, the ideological subjectification: Here, the cultural appeal that accompanies the blurring of work boundaries, that the work subjects should increasingly take responsibility for themselves, is at the center (cf. on this and the following statements of the paragraph Voß and Weiß 2005, p. 141 f.). This ideological appeal to self-entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship is also encountered in the coworking discourse, especially in the context of CWSs that focus on start-ups and offer corresponding support services. For this work, the fourth form, the understanding of an active subjectification, is especially important: The blurring of work boundaries requires active selforganization on the part of the work subjects. Subjectivity is thus a requirement to cope with blurred work conditions and is actively used as a resource or disposition (in the form of knowledge, skills, feelings or experiences) in the work processes. This is also where the above-described aestheticization of office work spaces comes in. The subjectification of work takes place, analogous to the blurring, in all dimensions of the design of work and the extended self-regulation of work activities by the subjects. G. Günter Voß and Cornelia Weiß (2005) give the following dimensions as examples: • “Time: when, how long, how fast, with what time logic, etc. must one work in a work context; • Space: at which place, with which movements in space, with which degree, with which media of mobility is one active in a work context; • Matter: what exactly and in which matter is work to be done; what is the respective operational and/or professional function; what qualifications are required for this, etc.; • Meaning: with which meaningful interpretations is one working; what motives are required or permissible/impermissible for an activity, etc. and • Emotions: with which emotional state is/should one work; is it a factual activity, a caring function; should one evaluate and/or criticize here, etc.” (Voß and Weiß 2005, pp. 142 f., emphases in the original) In this case, the dimensions are in different relations to each other and influence each other mutually. In the course of active subjectification, the working subjects have the possibility or are forced to shape their work subjectively in terms of time and space, but also in terms of content, meaning and emotion (Voß and Weiß 2005, p. 143). In this respect, it can be concluded that CWSs not only provide

2.1  Coworking Spaces as a Response to the Challenges of the World …

27

spatial-temporal, but also content-related, meaningful and emotional structures for the subjectified workers. As guiding images of the subjectified workers of post-Fordism, the “selfentrepreneurial” (Bröckling 2016) or the “entreployee” (Pongratz and Voß 2004; Voß and Pongratz 1998) can be considered. Both concepts refer to the new subject competencies that working subjects ideally bring with them in the course of the blurring and subjectification of work, in order to cope successfully with the described requirements. Thus, the type of the internalized labour power entrepreneur of post-Fordism is characterized by increased self-control, i.e. by increased independent planning, steering and monitoring of one’s own activity (cf. to this and the following statements Pongratz and Voß 2004, p. 24 f.). A second characteristic is the purposeful self-economization of one’s own labour power and this in a double sense: On the one hand, the workers as “entrepreneurs of themselves” (ibid., p. 25) have to produce their work potential in a targeted way, i.e. they have to produce their own skills and performances. On the other hand, it is about the active marketing of one’s own skills and performances on internal and external markets. A third feature of the labour power entrepreneur is finally self-rationalization in the sense of increasing, conscious organization of life and everyday life. The thesis of the labour power entrepreneur was critically received (for an overview see Minssen 2012), e.g. with regard to the neglect of gender aspects or also to the extent that it narrows down too much on company requirements and neglects the subjective perceptions and worlds of meaning (Matuschek et al. 2004). Contrary to the “efficiency-oriented design of one’s own life” (Voß and Pongratz 1998) of the labour power entrepreneur, Désirée Bender (2013, p. 169 f.) argues with reference to her analyses of creative workers that the (spatial) action of the creative working subjects is not exclusively purpose-oriented and efficiency-oriented, but that affects and emotions are also guiding actions. The emotional dimension of the subjectification of work is also relevant in the present work, when it comes to the consideration of the spaces of the workers affected by subjectification. With the blurring and subjectification of work, new scopes of action arise with regard to how, when, where, in what atmosphere, in whose presence and with the addition of which things the affected subjects work on what. The freedoms in designing one’s own work are also accompanied by risks or challenges. Thus, the working subjects lose certainties that are associated with a normal employment relationship, and often also the access to the professional and social structures of an organization (Reuschl and Bouncken 2017, p. 205). For digital

28

2  Background and Characterization of Coworking Spaces

nomads19 (as workers who are subjectified to a special degree), Liegl (2011) diagnoses an (emotional) “concern for space” with regard to the search for suitable work spaces, which makes them seek out authentic places of work, such as CWSs: “In a milieu whose actors are free to work where and when they want, this very where (probably also the when) becomes a permanent crisis” (Liegl 2011, p. 189, emphases in the original). The concern for space includes practices of Place Making and the associated aesthetic and affective aspects (Liegl 2014, p. 164). In this respect, Liegl says, places are sought out that feel “right” (ibid., p. 179, cf. Sect. 3.2.3). The spread of CWSs can be seen as a response to the challenges of boundaryless, subjectified and precarious work and the search for suitable workplaces (cf. among others Baumann 2013; Bender 2013; Bernhardt 2017; de Peuter et al. 2017; Jakonen et al. 2017; Merkel and Oppen 2013; Pohler 2012; Reuschl and Bouncken 2017). CWSs offer professional spatial structures of work and at the same time they also represent a spatial form of communitization with “collective-communicative structures” (Petendra 2015, p. 241), which provide limitation and security to boundaryless and subjectified work subjects. Thus, CWSs are an expression of the fact that physical-material spaces and places of work and associated face-to-face interactions have by no means become meaningless in the course of digitalization (cf. among others Bender 2013; Fabbri 2016; Merkel 2012; Petendra 2015; RGCS 2016). CWSs are institutionalized workspaces (cf. more precisely Sect. 3.1.2), which support their users in structuring their workday (Pohler 2012, p. 74 f.). They help the coworkers in the active limitation and self-organization of their own work with regard to the temporal-spatial location (cf. Baumann 2013; Blagoev et al. 2019) and by providing productivity and creativity-enhancing work settings (cf. Bender 2013). At the same time, CWSs are characterized by flexibility through structural indeterminacy, i.e. the spaces are flexible and open with regard to their use (Bernhardt 2017, p. 53; cf. Mer19  According

to Liegl (2014, p. 163), a digital nomad is “a mobile knowledge worker equipped with digital technologies to work ‘anytime, anywhere’.” Digital nomads are therefore persons who work almost exclusively with digital technologies in a mobile way. This is associated with a nomadic way of life, which is characterized by “permanent (cyclical) mobility” (Welskop-Deffaa 2018, p. 110). Digital nomads are thus characterized by both a mobile way of working and a mobile lifestyle—both aspects are taken into account by the following definition: “The term ‘digital nomad’ refers to a rapidly emerging class of highly mobile professionals, whose work is location independent. Thus, they work while traveling on (semi)permanent basis and vice versa, forming a new mobile lifestyle” (Hannonen 2020, emphasis in the original). Digital nomads are users of CWSs, but probably represent a rather small group of users.

2.1  Coworking Spaces as a Response to the Challenges of the World …

29

kel 2012; Merkel and Oppen 2013; Pohler 2012). The temporal flexibility of the CWS memberships accommodates project-based work and uncertain order situations (Merkel and Oppen 2013, p. 5). The fact that despite the intended separation of work and life, there are nevertheless again interrelations of the two spheres of life in the CWS (Merkel 2018a, p. 42)20, will be the topic of this work. In this context, CWSs, as pointed out at the beginning, are characterized by the fact that they connect work and community in a new way. In the following, the characteristics of CWSs are now explained in more detail.

2.2 Characterization of Coworking Spaces Coworking is a complex social phenomenon, whose definition is repeatedly discussed in both public and academic discourse (cf. Waters-Lynch et al. 2016). In this regard, the following is an exploration of the CWS concept through the features of these flexible workspaces (cf. Sect. 2.2.1), which are also spaces of communitization (cf. Sect. 2.2.2) and which are characterized by the fact that they are curated by coworking hosts with regard to their core functions (cf. Sect. 2.2.3). Following the elaboration of the features, a more precise definition of CWSs, a differentiation from similar workspace concepts and a presentation of the different concepts of CWSs are given (cf. Sect. 2.2.4). It is characteristic for CWSs that they are aestheticized spaces (cf. Sect. 2.2.5).

2.2.1 Spaces of Work The spatial organization of CWSs varies depending on the size21 typically between a flexibly organized group office and an open-space office, whereby the 20 Merkel (2018a, p. 42) cites as examples of such interrelations coworking with childcare, new solidary work structures or political interest representation, further education or the desire for a meaningful and self-determined activity associated with the normative subjectification. 21 The size of CWSs varies greatly. For example, in the Global Coworking Survey by the industry magazine Deskmag for the year 2018, more than a quarter of the surveyed CWS operators indicate that they have a CWS with less than 25 work desks (26%) or smaller than 250 square meters (28%) (Deskmag 2018). In contrast, there are 24% with 100 or more work desks or 29% with a size of 2000 square meters or more (ibid.). The results also show that on average only 40% of the CWS area is allocated to open spaces, 25% to private offices, 12% to meeting rooms and 11% to lounge or coffee space (ibid.).

30

2  Background and Characterization of Coworking Spaces

diversity of workplaces and zones usually increases with increasing area. The minimal configuration for smaller CWSs often consists of a large room with several desks arranged in groups, a meeting room that serves as a communicative and retreat place, and a kitchen or a kitchen area as a social meeting point. With increasing area, additional areas are added, such as a café, a workshop or the division into different work zones. The workspaces of CWSs are mainly oriented towards performing laptop work, although other target groups (such as craftsmen or cooks) can also be addressed with appropriate equipment (such as a workshop or a professional kitchen). Characteristic for CWSs is also that the users come from different companies and have different employment relationships. In the CWS they work together side by side, but also with each other (cf. Spinuzzi 2012)22 and share the infrastructure (Bernhardt 2017, p. 52). The offer of CWSs is characterized by flexibility in various respects. Temporally flexible memberships, ranging from hourly to (half-)day and multi-day to monthly tickets, are available. Temporal flexibility also exists depending on the offer and type of membership with regard to the use of the CWS outside the opening hours. Likewise, the spatial offer of workplaces is characterized by flexibility: These are flexible office workspaces with desk sharing (Sect. 2.1.3): As a rule, there are flexible workplaces, so-called Flex Desks, which can be used by different coworkers and where a clean-desk policy prevails. For storing personal items, lockers or roll containers, as usual for flexible office concepts, can often be rented. In addition, depending on the CWS offer, there are also fixed workplaces, called Fix Desks, or separate team offices for permanent use. Typical for CWSs is an open office architecture that offers flexibility in terms of use. Moreover, it is characteristic for CWSs that the spatial arrangements are constantly redesigned in the context of curating (cf. Merkel 2014). In addition to renting work desks and team offices, CWSs usually offer further services, such as combined offers with the membership (e.g. the use of the meeting room, a landline phone or a separate business address), the renting of rooms for events or meetings also for external parties, own events or the operation

22 Cf.

also Spinuzzi (2012), who conducted one of the first scientific studies on coworking qualitatively examining nine CWSs in Austin, Texas. The central result is the elaboration of two different ideal-typical coworking structures: the Good-Neighbours-Configuration, in which the coworkers work parallel to each other and maintain neighborly relationships with the other coworkers, and the Good-Partners-Configuration, in which the coworkers work as specialists in a certain area as work teams in the context of projects for phases.

2.2  Characterization of Coworking Spaces

31

of additional spaces, such as a public café, studios, a workshop or facilities for childcare. The offer of a flexible and professional office infrastructure and the associated provision of workspaces that has been presented up to here can be considered as the primary core function of CWSs (cf. Fabbri 2016, p. 355). But this is not the only one, as Mikko Jakonen, Nina Kivinen, Perttu Salovaara and Piia Hirkman (2017, p. 236) note when reviewing the state of research on coworking: “The value of coworking spaces is thus seen not only in the desk space they offer but in a new kind of open workspace that is based on a community of heterogeneous people encountering each other serendipitously.” Thus, the coworkers gain access to a social network23: CWSs offer a social interaction space for exchange and community building (Reuschl and Bouncken 2017, p. 187), which can be seen as the second core function of CWSs. This new connection of work and community makes the attractiveness of CWSs (Rus and Orel 2015, p. 1024 f.)

2.2.2 Spaces of Communitization The narrative of community has a central importance in the coworking discourse. Associated with this are the social interactions in CWSs, which are expressed in informal interactions, direct social support (exchanging information, instrumental support) and collaboration (cf. Gerdenitsch et al. 2016). The social interactions and encounters in the CWS are also seen in the research on coworking as the raison d’être of coworking (Jakonen et al. 2017, p. 236). The term community is omnipresent in the self-descriptions of CWSs as well as in the media and academic publications about them, although it is at the same time inconsistent and inadequately defined (Bernhardt 2021, p. 51; cf. S. Schmidt and Brinks 2017; Spinuzzi et al. 2019). This emphasis on the term community in the coworking discourse shows, according to Greig de Peuter, Nicole S. Cohen and Francesca Saraco (2017, p. 695), that work—despite flexibilization—still functions as a basis for collective belonging (cf. Sect. 4.3). The term community is used differently and endowed with different meanings depending on the context (similar to the term Coworking Space itself), as also the Research Group on Collaborative

23 The

formal membership usually includes access to a CWS workspace, the shared infrastructure and the member network of the CWS and events. However, there are also memberships that only allow access to the member network of the CWS and events, without renting a CWS workspace.

32

2  Background and Characterization of Coworking Spaces

Spaces (RGCS) (2016, p. 35) diagnoses with reference to Collaborative Spaces24 in general: “The word ‘community’ is used in numerous ways whatever the context (city, kind of space…) to refer to a physical or social space, common facilities, people sharing values, a social movement broader than the space and so forth […]. Community lies at the heart of most business models of collaborative spaces and its use and practice is highly strategic.”

Thus, the RGCS distinguishes between Collaborative Spaces, where the use of the term community is rather anecdotal (and where “community” seems to be more of a marketing term), and others, where community building is a core goal (ibid., p. 35 f.). The latter, which are considered characteristic for the first development phase of the coworking phenomenon and are typically organized bottom-up (cf. also Capdevila 2014), follow the original “ideological” coworking discourse (Jakonen et al. 2017, p. 235): This sees the driving force of coworking and the significance of CWSs in the new organization of work, which is not only characterized by bringing together different workers at one place, but also by the formation of new forms of communities (cf. ibid., p. 235 f.). Thus, a new quality of (collaborative) work is proclaimed, which is oriented towards common coworking values (community, openness, collaboration, accessibility and sustainability) (cf. Coworking Wiki n.d.). Coworking Wiki (n.d.) defines coworking accordingly: “What is Coworking? The idea is simple: independent professionals and those with workplace flexibility work better together than they do alone. Coworking spaces are about community-building and sustainability. Participants agree to uphold the values set forth by the movement’s founders, as well as interact and share with one another. We are about creating better places to work and as a result, a better way to work.”

Here, the idea of CWSs as spaces where community and collaboration are the key to a form of economic activity that is characterized by innovation and creativity (Coworking Manifesto n.d.) is conveyed.25 The emphasis on social interactions

24 Collaborative

Spaces is the umbrella term for community-oriented spaces, which include CWSs as well as Maker Spaces, Fab Labs and Hacker Spaces (cf. Sect. 2.2.4). 25 Where innovation and creativity are positively connoted terms that also refer to the aestheticized workspaces as a desired state: “To be creative, to be able to unfold creatively in one’s work, is an ideal of the post-industrial work culture, which is influenced by the postmaterialist value change.” (Reckwitz 2017, p. 187). This expresses a normative subjectification of work as a result of the change in work values (cf. Sect. 2.1.4).

2.2  Characterization of Coworking Spaces

33

and the participation in a community as well as the associated principle of cooperation (knowledge exchange and collaboration) are still central characteristics of CWSs (Brown 2017, p. 114). This distinguishes CWSs from other models of shared workspaces, where the rental of flexible workstations is the focus, as is the case with Business Centers (Bernhardt 2017, p. 52, 2021, p. 51 f.; cf. WatersLynch et al. 2016).26 The CWS community, which is typically characterized by heterogeneity in terms of company affiliation and depending on the orientation of the CWS also in terms of industry affiliation of the users, provides the basis for (intended and unintended) accidental encounters, which prove to be a lucky coincidence and are discussed and idealized under the term of accelerated serendipity in the coworking discourse (cf. Jakonen et al. 2017). Serendipity means “the accidental discovery of something valuable” (Cunha et al. 2010, p. 319), i.e. accidental encounters in the CWS create a professional, personal or economic added value (Jakonen et al. 2017, p. 236). In CWSs, however, these encounters do not only take place unplanned and randomly, but are also consciously steered and enforced by the operators as part of the curating process (cf. the following explanations on curating). Community in the context of CWSs means in the coworking discourse, as well as in the academic literature on coworking and related studies, mainly the communitization through social interactions, which can be professional or informal. Concretely, CWSs are spaces of networking and social as well as professional integration (cf. among others de Peuter et al. 2017; Merkel and Oppen 2013; Reuschl and Bouncken 2017; Waters-Lynch and Potts 2017), of mutual support (cf. among others de Peuter et al. 2017; Gerdenitsch et al. 2016), of knowledge exchange and learning (cf. among others Capdevila 2015; Jakonen et al. 2017; Merkel and Oppen 2013; Parrino 2015; Reuschl and Bouncken 2017; WatersLynch et al. 2016) and of coexisting and collaborating (cf. among others Orel and Alonso Almeida 2019; Spinuzzi 2012) and have been researched accordingly (Bernhardt 2021, p. 55, on the state of research regarding coworking communities in the narrower sense see Sect. 4.4).

26 For

further distinctions of CWSs from other work or community-oriented spaces, see Sect. 2.2.4.

34

2  Background and Characterization of Coworking Spaces

2.2.3 Coworking Hosts and Curating CWSs can be understood as social collectives that have a clear organizational dimension, which not only conveys a sense of community, but also rules, discipline, rituals and routines, which structure the work of the coworkers (Blagoev et al. 2019). They are usually not self-organized, as is typical for conventional office communities, but are operated within different organizational forms such as sole proprietorships, associations or cooperatives by companies, municipalities or universities. The CWS operators act as mediators between different actors: Besides the coworkers, these are event visitors, supporters of the CWS, the neighborhood or the property managers. CWSs can be regarded as meta-organizations in this respect (cf. Reuschl and Bouncken 2017; RGCS 2016). These are organizations that in turn host different organizations, i.e. (solo-)self-employed, startups and small businesses, employees of NGOs or large corporations, etc. as users and their projects and activities (RGCS 2016, p. 13). Characteristic for CWSs is that they are based on comparatively few formal rules and organizational control mechanisms (cf. Pohler 2012). With regard to the business model, CWSs can be understood as providers of a service27, which results from the core functions described above28: the provision of spaces of work (Andreas J. Reuschl and Ricarda B. Bouncken (2017, p. 187, 194 f.) speak of “professional interaction space”) and spaces of community (i.e. “social interaction space” (ibid.)29). CWSs are characterized by an interplay of formality and informality (Blagoev et al. 2019). Associated with the orientation towards community, enabling and fostering encounters and social interactions among the coworkers (but also between coworkers and members of the operating team or between coworkers and external

27 The

CWS offer can be profit-oriented or non-profit. The results of the operator survey of the Global Coworking Survey show that the vast majority of CWSs are profit-oriented (82%) (Deskmag 2018). 28 Fabbri (2016) takes a slightly different conception, which defines the business activity of CWSs by two concrete activities: While she understands the provision of workspaces as the primary business activity, she lists the organization of events as the secondary business activity of CWSs (Fabbri 2016, p. 355). Events can be both communitizing and workrelated. 29 Whereas Reuschl and Bouncken conceive of these spaces as absolute container spaces and assign certain spatial arrangements to certain functions. As will be shown, however, different spaces can also be constituted at one place according to the conception pursued here (cf. Sect. 3.1).

2.2  Characterization of Coworking Spaces

35

persons from the extended CWS network) is a central task of CWSs (Bernhardt 2021, p. 52; cf. Jakonen et al. 2017; Merkel 2015). In this regard, the coworking hosts and organizational practices of curating community are of particular importance (Bernhardt 2021, p. 52; cf. among others Merkel 2015; S. Schmidt and Brinks 2017). This is based on the insight that the physical copresence30 at a place alone does not yet lead to social interactions and collaboration in the CWS (cf. Merkel 2015, p. 128). Moreover, social interactions require energy, especially when it comes to persons in precarious employment situations31, which is why they should be supported by the operators (Gerdenitsch et al. 2016, p. 10). The coworking hosts are usually members of the operating teams (the CWS operators themselves or professional community managers (cf. Merkel 2015, p. 122)), but they can also be coworkers. Their tasks in everyday CWS life include talking to the users of the CWS, showing interest in their person and their activities, connecting them with other users or with people from the extended network or recommending users. Coworking hosts are responsible for the onboarding of new coworkers, give a tour through the CWS and introduce new users. They help coworkers with questions and problems or organize events especially for the users, such as joint meals or workshops.32 In addition, coworking hosts also take care of the design and maintenance of the non-human space and its spatial arrangements and curate the virtual space, when it comes to the design of the CWS’s own website or pages or groups in social media. How multifaceted the role of the hosts is, shows the following enumeration from an internal

30 Copresence

encompasses the presence of persons in spatial proximity to each other, creating a social situation and thus “an environment of mutual monitoring possibilities, anywhere within which an individual will find himself accessible to the naked senses of all others who are ‘present’, and similarly find them accessible to him” (Goffman 1964, p. 135). A social situation thus also represents, for example, working for oneself in the case of CWSs. In copresence, the other present persons move into the individual’s perceptual range. With a relational understanding of space, copresent others can become part of the individually experienced space in very different ways, as will become clear in this work (on the relational understanding of space cf. Sect. 3.1). 31 Thus, Jakonen et al. (2017, p. 240) state that the precarious status of CWS users leads to them lacking the time or interest to build relationships in the CWS, as they focus on their own work. 32 The events in CWSs show a diversity of formats and topics, which are either only accessible for members or open for a wider public (Fabbri 2016, p. 355). Especially those social events organized for the members are of particular importance in the context of curating community.

36

2  Background and Characterization of Coworking Spaces

“Hosting Manifesto” of a CWS, which I visited: “Hosts have different ‘hats’ to wear: Sometimes they take the role of a mentor, trustful granny or match-maker, sometimes they are masters of ceremony, restaurant managers or event organizers and sometimes even cleaners, builders or IT experts” (internal document for hosts, D-Space). Coworking hosts not only take on a versatile and emotionally demanding, but also an important and complex role, which resembles the conductors of an orchestra (Brown 2017, p. 121): In the context of curating, they have conversations with coworkers, select coworkers if necessary and pay attention to the composition of the CWS members, promote and live certain coworking values and practices, carry out specific (tailor-made) activities and events and arrange the non-human space (cf. ibid.). All this affects the type of social interactions and exchange in the CWS (cf. ibid.). Curating related to the community aspect means in the context of coworking, following the definition of Janet Merkel (2015, p. 123): “social and material strategies used by coworking hosts to enable and facilitate interaction and collaboration amongst coworkers”.33 As will be shown, curating also involves creating appropriate atmospheres: Thus, Merkel formulates as another purpose of curating, to create an atmosphere of collaboration and social relations (ibid., p. 121). And also Agnes Katharina Müller (2018, p. 102) sees a characteristic of CWSs in that the operators of CWSs “have an interest in conveying a special atmosphere and a sense of community” (Müller 2018, p. 102, emphases in the original). Social strategies of curating community refer to the activities of the hosts in interaction with the coworkers, such as introducing users to each other or organizing community events. Material strategies refer to the arrangement of the non-human space and its design: Thus, tables are arranged so that eye contact with each other is enabled (Merkel 2015, p. 130). Whiteboards, writable walls or tables or transparent walls or doors are also expressions of exchange and collaboration: “Whiteboards with scribbles, rounded table corners or transparent conference rooms serve as visual clues and openings for communication and collaboration among the coworkers” (ibid.). Another typical artifact of CWSs is the member wall, which displays photos of all CWS members and information about the person. Also inspiring quotes or quirky art are common symbols of the curated communal non-human space of CWSs (cf. Waters-Lynch et al. 2016, p. 10). A central material strategy in the course of curating community is also the setting up of

33 Cf.

for a deeper understanding of the term in detail Sect. 3.2.2. Curating is also a field term and is used in the general coworking discourse, as well as by operators in the present study.

2.2  Characterization of Coworking Spaces

37

social meeting points as places of exchange, such as the sofa lounge, the coffee machine or the café: These are positioned and designed in such a way that social interactions are enforced (cf. Jakonen et al. 2017; Merkel 2015). In addition, the office design and the associated creation of affecting spaces within the material curating of community is of importance, which will be discussed in more detail in Sect. 2.2.5.

2.2.4 Definitional Classification and Sketching of the Field From the two core functions of CWSs and the importance of curating in the organizational concept, the following definition emerges: Coworking Spaces are flexibly usable, institutionalized workspaces, whose users have different company affiliations. Besides the primary core function of providing workspaces, the second core function that characterizes Coworking Spaces is that they are spaces of communitization. In the context of curating community, encounters and social interactions are enabled and fostered through social and material strategies. Accordingly, coworking is here defined as working for oneself and with each other in a spatially and temporally limited, locally specified way and taking place within the framework of flexible and community-oriented institutionalized workspaces .34,35 In this work, CWSs are briefly understood as community-oriented flexible workspaces that are located at specific places. In the coworking discourse, they are positioned as alternative workspaces to conventional offices on the one hand and the working from home on the other hand. At the same time, they provide an alternative to working on the go in public transport or in waiting areas or to socalled “third places” (cf. Oldenburg 1997) (besides home and workplace)36 such

34 In

other works, e.g. by Merkel (2018a, p. 35), coworking is more broadly defined as flexible and temporary coworking, which can then take place in various formats, e.g. also in the context of regular meetings in cafés or public places (so-called Jellies). 35 In this work, following Spinuzzi (2012), both working for oneself alongside each other and interacting with each other are understood as coworking. Whether the users are looking for a community space in addition to the workspace is left open following Jakonen et al. (2018). 36 Oldenburg (1997, p. 16) understands third places as a variety of public places where regular, voluntary, informal and joyfully anticipated gatherings of people take place, this beyond home (as first place) or workplace (as second place).

38

2  Background and Characterization of Coworking Spaces

as cafés, bars or libraries or are themselves conceived as a third place (cf. among others Brown 2017; Kingma 2016; Moriset 2014; Waters-Lynch et al. 2016). CWSs also offer an alternative to working with other workspace concepts, such as office communities or serviced offices, as they will be presented in more detail below. The boundaries to other forms of community-oriented or work-related flexible spaces are fluid. Moreover, the concept has diversified in recent years, which is whyseparations and defining the scope of CWSs are made below. CWSs differ from conventional office or studio communities by their flexibility, openness and the curating of community. Thus, users of CWSs do not commit themselves to long-term rental contracts, but can rely on temporally flexible memberships. As a result, the user group of CWSs is comparatively larger, more open and also more dynamic. In addition, there is typically a higher flexibility in terms of space use by the individual coworkers in the CWS. For office communities, on the other hand, it is characteristic that they are self-organized and that there is no formal role similar to the coworking host or community manager. The service of business centers or serviced offices, in turn, focuses only on the primary core function of providing flexibly usable workspaces: “In broad terms, what these services share is a business model based on flexible, low commitment rental access to office space and amenities” (Waters-Lynch et al. 2016, p. 9). However, these office concepts do not provide any communal spaces and a related curating (cf. Waters-Lynch et al. 2016, p. 9 ff., who make a comparison between the “serviced office industry” and CWSs). Moreover, the localization at strategic, attractive, convenient or prestigious locations (Waters-Lynch et al. 2016, p. 9) is associated with usually significantly higher costs for renting a workspace, which attracts different target groups than CWSs, whose principles of openness and accessibility are also expressed in the offer of affordable workspaces. As postmodern community-oriented workspaces, CWSs discursively and aesthetically distinguish themselves from the office workspaces of the old world of work, and thus also from the conventional, standardized, professional office aesthetics of the business centers (cf. Bender 2013; Bernhardt 2017, p. 51; Waters-Lynch et al. 2016, p. 10; on aesthetics see the following chapter). However, this does not mean that CWSs do not also adopt conventional office aesthetics—this happens quite often. On the other hand, business centers also use the aesthetics of CWSs: Thus, some serviced office providers (in addition to real estate firms) see coworking as an untapped market and act as commercial coworking providers, offering workspaces for hundreds or even thousands of users (Merkel 2018b, p. 9). This shows, as Waters-Lynch et al. (2016, p. 11) also note, that the boundaries between CWSs and serviced offices are becoming increasingly blurred:

2.2  Characterization of Coworking Spaces

39

“It should be noted that the distinctions between coworking spaces and serviced offices are not rigid and exist along spectrums. They have also become blurred in recent years by hybridising movements from on the one hand, traditional serviced office providers such as Regus and Servcorp now claiming to offer coworking; and on the other hand, ‘coworking spaces’, such as WeWork and Next Space, offering standardised private offices.”

With emphasis on the core function community space, CWSs—in contrast to business centers or serviced offices—can be described as collaborative spaces (cf. among others de Vaujany et al. 2019; RGCS 2016) or open creative labs (S. Schmidt et al. 2016; S. Schmidt and Brinks 2017). In addition to CWSs, this also includes fab labs (fabrication laboratories), maker spaces or hacker spaces. CWSs as “working labs” (S. Schmidt and Brinks 2017, p. 295) differ from the other forms of collaborative spaces mainly in terms of their business orientation and entrepreneurial alignment, while the other forms focus on innovation and “do it yourself” mentality (de Vaujany et al. 2019, p. 2). Fab labs, maker spaces or hacker spaces can in turn be combined with CWSs. Furthermore, there are incubators or accelerators, which are work-related like CWSs and appeal primarily to start-ups. These forms differ from CWSs mainly in that they actively support start-ups and offer corresponding programs. A CWS, which is also open to other users, can however be connected to an incubator or accelerator. Finally, independent CWSs are also to be considered separately from company-owned CWSs or flexible office workspaces of companies or organizations.37 Company-internal CWSs correspond to the above CWS definition only partially, insofar as typically only employees of the company work here and, associated with this, there are usually access restrictions for external parties. In addition, the goals of company-internal CWSs differ from those of independent CWSs, as Jakonen et al. (2017, p. 241) note with reference to their research: “The corporation […] lacks a key element of ‘open’ coworking: free choice to join or become a member in the space. Whereas corporations intend to increase cooperation by bringing people together, coworking spaces emphasize the community aspect and voluntary nature of these interactions […]”. And although companies use the concept of internal CWS for themselves or CWSs resemble flexible office work-

37 The

different forms of how companies use CWSs for themselves, whether they set up their own CWSs or let employees work in CWSs, are also summarized under the term “corporate coworking” (for an overview cf. Bauer et al. 2014; Josef and Back 2018).

40

2  Background and Characterization of Coworking Spaces

spaces of companies in their material design, company-controlled flexible workspaces differ from independent open CWSs in terms of the control of labor and associated autonomy. Unlike the employees of a company, coworkers are not subject to any overarching goals or instructions from the CWS operators. They rather represent “their own (micro-)enterprise with their own goals, offers, customers and business models” (Reuschl and Bouncken 2017, p. 197). The CWS users have a higher degree of autonomy in this respect compared to the employees of a conventional company: They are freer in their choice of workplace and are not bound to the other coworkers or to the CWS (ibid.). In this respect, Reuschl and Bouncken (2017, p. 197) state: “While in classical organizations a minimum degree of professional interaction is required by the employment contract and the embedding in a work organization, this is left to the users of coworking spaces according to their individual goals.” Users of CWSs often voluntarily choose the CWS as their workplace and can leave it quickly if it does not fit or if their requirements change, which is not so easy with workspaces in the company context (even if they are flexibly organized). As already stated at the beginning, CWSs have established themselves in today’s work world. Since the emergence of the first CWSs, there has been a professionalization and, associated with this, also a differentiation and specialization of coworking with regard to different concepts, target groups, actors and markets or an expansion of the concept by combining it with other areas of life, e.g. living or vacation. Accordingly, offers, focuses, objectives and target groups (and possible admission conditions) vary between CWSs. Thus, coworking in rural areas has become an increasingly important topic in recent years and is also supported by corresponding initiatives.38 But also coworking in holiday destinations (also known under the keywords coworkation or coworking retreat) and the associated combination of coworking and coliving39 are becoming more and more popular.

38 Rural

coworking (possibly in combination with coliving) can enhance structurally weak rural regions in terms of regional economy as well as the attractiveness of municipalities. With a focus on commuters, working in the CWS at the place of residence is linked to a better balance of work and life with regard to gained time and more sustainability by saving commuting distances. 39 Coliving is similar to coworking about the shared and flexible coexistence as well as living together for a limited time. Coliving spaces provide community-oriented flexible living spaces in this respect, analogous to CWSs, whereby the coliving community also has a special value and is curated.

2.2  Characterization of Coworking Spaces

41

Especially in the urban context, there has been a differentiation of the CWS offer and a specialization of CWSs. Thus, there are CWSs specifically for certain target groups or topics, e.g. for women, older people, specific professional groups (such as social entrepreneurs or writers) or with a focus on inclusion. CWSs expand the core offer e.g. by childcare, a podcast studio, a public café or a maker space. Furthermore, there are cooperations with hotels or restaurants to transform them into CWSs outside the main season or outside peak times. In this respect, the boundaries to other concepts are increasingly blurring. At the same time, CWS-like concepts are also emerging, such as anticafés40 or other offers that seek to solve similar challenges as the concept Hoffice, where workers arrange to work at someone’s home. With the increasing popularity of coworking, more and more new actors are also interested in CWSs. Thus, public actors, such as universities, municipalities or churches, but also actors from the economy, such as banks, are now operators of CWSs. In addition to the initially usually bottom-up-organized CWSs, there are now also large commercially oriented coworking providers with several locations worldwide, which are organized top-down and whose business model focuses on renting flexible office space, while the CWS community becomes more of a side aspect or marketing tool (cf. Brown 2017; Capdevila 2014; RGCS 2016): “CWS are materializing as large, corporate, for-profit and professionally managed ventures and there are multi-site coworking companies located in major cities” (Brown 2017, p. 114). In view of this, coworking is increasingly commercialized (de Peuter et al. 2017, p. 691). In this regard, providers of business centers have also discovered coworking as a marketing strategy and adapted their offer. Thus, it cannot be ruled out that the term “coworking space” is used to market classic concepts of renting flexible work space better and to reach a larger target group. As a conclusion, it can be stated: Due to the increasing differentiation of the coworking concept and the increased interest in coworking by various actors, it becomes increasingly difficult to make a clear distinction and delimitation of coworking. An expression of this is also that the unclear definition of cow-

40 Anticafés

are cafés in their material form, but differ in terms of their organizational concept from conventional cafés. The billing is done in small units of time and is designed as an all-inclusive offer with provided food and a selection of drinks. Within the “purchased” time, as many drinks and food can be consumed as desired. Laptop workers are core users of anticafés, whose non-human space is also oriented towards this. In contrast to the CWS, however, anticafés are not exclusively work space, the service lies on the café services and less on the curating of community (cf. field notes visit anticafé).

42

2  Background and Characterization of Coworking Spaces

orking is a constant part of the coworking discourse and is constantly rekindled. For example, the discussions at the Coworking Europe Conference (2016, 2018) showed that coworking pioneers still emphasize community and the propagated coworking values. In contrast, the term CWS is used by some representatives in the real estate, corporate or business center context as a synonym for an open work area with different zones that enable different forms of work. Overall, it can be noted that the differentiation of CWSs with different orientations in terms of the core functions goes hand in hand with the fact that different CWSs appeal to different user groups (cf. Brown 2017, p. 114).

2.2.5 Aestheticized Work Spaces In the design of the non-human space of CWSs, general developments of postFordist office architecture are reflected, which take into account the technological changes and more flexible, adaptable and aestheticized spatial arrangements (cf. Jakonen et al. 2017, p. 236 and Sect. 2.1.3). Insofar as CWSs are institutionalized work spaces, they show structural similarities in terms of office architecture worldwide (Pohler 2012, p. 75). Similarities are also evident in this regard in relation to the office design of CWSs, to which Liegl (2011, p. 188) states: “[a] pretty paradox, when places with open architecture as a spatial dispositif multiply worldwide”. François-Xavier de Vaujany et al. (2019, p. 8) also observe various global tendencies in their study of 110 collaborative spaces in terms of spatial arrangements, furniture and aesthetics: “[O]ne of the most amazing elements related to this was a general impression of isomorphism […] These spaces were truly ‘same-same’, as the saying goes in Thailand. They had the same furniture (phone booths, ping-pong tables, chalkboards, Ikea seats…). They also took the same pride in having Steelcase furniture or cheap or free furniture, the same space design (welcome desks, general L- or U-shaped layouts, open spaces surrounded by small, private offices), and the same emphasis on a ‘community’ […].”

In this context, Bender (2013, p. 155) argues that CWSs “represent an established space/time/cost and placement structure that has been institutionalized and spatialized by symbol operators (‘the makers’) in alignment with scene-typical location and spatial aesthetic codes and in economic orientation, as well as discursively delimited”. The operators operate within the material strategies of curating with arrangements, materials, “codes” or symbols, when it comes to the

2.2  Characterization of Coworking Spaces

43

design of the spatial arrangements, thereby creating certain atmospheres.41 The importance of a special aesthetics of the CWS or collaborative space in general seems to be quite aware to the operators, as de Vaujany et al. (2019, p. 7) observe in their study: “For the independent spaces that we observed, aesthetics played a pivotal role in attracting customers; these spaces seemed to recognize that customers are often in search of a very particular aesthetic.” Moreover, the authors note that these similarities in terms of aesthetics contribute to a familiar atmosphere (ibid., p. 8). Müller (2018, pp. 111–114) identifies three styles in relation to the CWS design in her analysis of Berlin CWSs: In addition to a “classic” office style, which she characterizes as functional and rather impersonal, she highlights a “creative” office style, which is characterized by “original second-hand furniture” (ibid., p. 112), self-made furniture and/or Ikea furniture and bears the signature of the operators: “Here, tables and chairs are all (seemingly) randomly mixed” (ibid.). Müller adds that the ambiance of the unfinished was deliberately chosen by the operators to be inspiring and creativity-enhancing. Thirdly, Müller characterizes the “design” office style, which combines design classics with functional furniture and innovative lighting and also wants to create an inspiring ambiance with different zones (ibid., p. 113). CWSs with this style direction (which rather follow a top-down concept, which is why they are not in the focus of this work) are usually professionally designed by interior architects and designers in advance, paying attention to functionality as in the “classic” CWSs (ibid.). In comparison to “creative” CWSs, the “design” CWSs leave little room for individual design of the non-human space by coworkers or operators (ibid.). Müller emphasizes “that in all styles, the furnishing and design of the space has a significant influence on the (work) atmosphere in the space and the possibility of developing a sense of community” (ibid., p. 114). This is where the present work comes in. One goal of the “aesthetic design of a stimulating work environment” (Merkel 2018a, p. 39) is thus for CWSs, as well as for aestheticized office workspaces in general, to enable creativity and to create a stimulating environment (ibid.). While aestheticized workspaces in the corporate context have a direct intended benefit for the companies (see Sect. 2.1.3), this is indirect for the operators: The CWS aesthetics and the associated atmospheres serve to enhance the value of the place,

41 In

this regard, not only the spaces themselves, but also their location are distinctive for the atmosphere, as de Vaujany et al. (2019, p. 7) note: “In coworking spaces, it was clear that location choice was a key element in the space’s visibility and atmosphere.”

44

2  Background and Characterization of Coworking Spaces

to attract and retain potential users (see Jakonen et al. 2017, p. 241).42 The direct benefit lies with the users themselves, who visit the CWS (see ibid.) to pick up positive affects and creativity impulses for their own creative work (see Bender 2013; Liegl 2014). In this respect, coworking can be understood as a “creative practice” (Merkel 2018a, p. 37).43 At the same time, the CWS aesthetics has symbolic power and refers to the discursive positioning as a pioneer of the postmodern work world44: As already highlighted in contrast to business centers, a characteristic of the aesthetics of CWSs is that they distinguish themselves from the conventional standardized, professional aesthetics of the old work world (see Waters-Lynch et al. 2016, p. 10): CWS workspaces are designed to be more playful, open and transparent in relation to the non-human space (not least also to, as shown, reflect the community aspect in the space design) (ibid.). Typical is post-Fordist spatial aesthetics, already mentioned in relation to the aestheticized office workspaces in general, that combines ‘work’ and ‘play’ (ibid.), which often leads to a spatial mixing of work and non-work (Bernhardt 2017, p. 54). CWSs thus position themselves not only discursively, but also through space design and the selection of specific artifacts and aesthetic codes, as well as textures, light or colors, as counter-proposals to the prevailing images of the old work world (see Bender 2013; Bernhardt 2017; de Vaujany et al. 2019; Waters-Lynch et al. 2016). While CWSs and their meaning have been rather positively highlighted so far, negative aspects of CWSs are also addressed in existing literature. Thus, CWSs also have to struggle with the disadvantages of open-plan offices: in terms of lack of privacy, noise and thus also the risk of a loss of creativity due to disturbances (Merkel 2018a, p. 38). Besides the emphasis on community and social interactions, there is also the danger of exclusion of persons in CWSs (ibid., as well as Brown 2017). Moreover, CWSs are also critically viewed as “catch basin[s] for precarious workers” (Gandini 2015, p. 202) and amplifiers of precarization patterns (Merkel 2018a, p. 40) (cf. ibid., de Peuter et al. 2017; Jakonen et al. 2017).

42 Jakonen

et al. (2017, p. 241) state this in relation to the spatial organization of encounters: “In the context of a corporation, the workspace is a more intentional attempt to make encounters matter businesswise. In an open coworking space, the direct benefits go to the coworkers and their businesses, whereas the space itself receives secondary gains for encounters as these enhance the value of the space indirectly” (ibid.). 43 On the sociology of practices see Sect. 3.4.1. 44 Although this is not always the case, as the “classic” office style observed by Müller (2018) shows.

2.2  Characterization of Coworking Spaces

45

Coworking thus not only represents a response to the challenges of the flexibilization of work, but also reinforces them at the same time (de Peuter et al. 2017, p. 691). CWSs can, on the one hand, support subjectified workers in the spatialtemporal structuring of their work, but on the other hand, they do not offer the securities of a normal employment relationship (cf. Blagoev et al. 2019, p. 911 f.) and there is the danger that CWSs reinforce the negative sides that go along with the blurring and subjectification of work. In this regard, de Peuter, Cohen and Saraco (2017, p. 693) formulate exaggeratedly: “As coworking spreads, so too does a model neoliberal workplace: a shock absorber for workers who traded security for a limited form of autonomy; a hive of non-union workers whose coworking fees subsidize firms reaping savings from precarious work; and a largely unregulated workplace where policies such as equity appear difficult to enforce.” In such a reading, the propagated CWS values and the special CWS aesthetics would merely convey the illusion that coworking stands for a new quality of (co-) working in postmodernity (cf. ibid., p. 691). In the following, it will be illuminated with reference to existing literature how the users of CWSs are composed and what they associate with working in the CWS.

2.3 Characterization of the Coworkers After CWSs were examined more closely with regard to their orientation as work and community spaces, in relation to their organizational concept and the importance of curating, as well as with regard to their special aesthetics, this chapter serves to characterize the users of CWSs. These, as has been worked out so far, are particularly affected by the blurring and subjectification of work (cf. among others Bernhardt 2017; Hartmann 2016; Koschel 2014) and exhibit corresponding characteristics, as they are significant for digital-mobile workers (Ruiner and Wilkesmann 2016, p. 95). Bender (2013) focuses on the creative and knowledge workers as users of (urban) CWSs and understands them in this respect as members of a scene: CWSs represent for them accordingly (and in comparison to cafés) “relatively homogeneous entities, which were also specifically designed for a specific population and culture” (Bender 2013, p. 155). In the course of the establishment of CWSs and the differentiation of the concept, however, there was also an opening up of the user group of CWSs. Thus, people from other industries now work in CWSs and besides solo self-employed and start-ups as original user groups, CWSs also host larger companies and their employees or decentralized working employees. At the same time, specialized CWSs or CWSs with admission restrictions appeal to homogeneous user groups. How are the users of

46

2  Background and Characterization of Coworking Spaces

CWSs composed exactly and what leads them to work in CWSs? This question is answered in the following on the basis of existing literature. Information on the socio-demographic characteristics of the coworkers is provided by the results of the regularly conducted Global Coworking Survey of the online magazine Deskmag45. According to this, the majority of the surveyed coworkers46 work in professional fields for which digital and project-related knowledge-based work is typical: The strongest professional group are people from IT professions with a share of 22%, followed by people from the fields of PR, marketing and communication (14%), as well as people who work in the field of writing (journalists, writers, copywriters etc.) (9%) (cf. for this and the following statements of the paragraph Foertsch 2017b for the results of the Global Coworking Survey 2016/2017). The users are often atypically employed: Freelancers or solo self-employed people make up the largest user group with a share of 41%, although their share has steadily decreased since 2011/2012 (55%). Foertsch (2017b) explains this by the fact that CWSs offer team and private offices with increasing space, which has continuously reduced the relative share of selfemployed people. Accordingly, the share of solo self-employed people in CWSs with 100 or more workplaces is just one third. The second largest (and a proportionally growing) group are employees with a share of 36% (2011/2012: 27%).47 16% of the surveyed CWS members are entrepreneurs with their own employees. The above-average level of education of the coworkers is striking: Around 85% of the CWS users surveyed as part of the Global Coworking Survey 2016/2017

45 The

Global Coworking Survey, conducted annually until January 2019 by the online magazine Deskmag, which specializes in coworking, is the most comprehensive standardized survey of its kind (with 1980 participants in the 2017/2018 survey and 2668 participants in 2018/2019), which was conducted for the first time in 2011/2012. It provides information on the characteristics of the coworkers and operators as well as the characteristics of the CWSs themselves and also shows differences between individual groups and developments over time. Since not all results were publicly published for each year, the presented results come from different waves and are marked accordingly. However, since the Global Coworking Survey is not a scientific study, the results should be interpreted with caution. 46 The publications of Deskmag speak synonymously of “members” of CWSs. 47 The worldwide differences are interesting here: In Asia, employees make up by far the largest group of coworkers with a share of 56%. In North America, on the other hand, the shares of freelancers (37%) and employees (35%) are almost equal. Among the surveyed European CWS members, about half (51%) of the surveyed users are solo self-employed (cf. Foertsch 2017a).

2.3  Characterization of the Coworkers

47

have a university education, which matches the high level of education generally known in the cultural and creative industries and IT industry. The degrees of freedom at work are high for the majority of users: 91 or 92% of the CWS members surveyed as part of the Global Coworking Survey 2013/2014 can often or even always decide where or how they work (Foertsch 2014b). The average age of the surveyed coworkers was 2016/2017 just over 36 years and the proportion of women was 44% (Foertsch 2017b). The proportion of women among the CWS members has continuously increased, which Foertsch (2017b) also explains by the fact that more and more employees, among whom a higher proportion of women can be recorded, work in CWSs. The assumption that coworkers are often people with precarious employment relationships is somewhat relativized by the study results on the income of the surveyed users48: Only 16% of the coworkers surveyed in 2016/2017 rate their income as low or very low compared to their living costs (Foertsch 2017b). In contrast, 35% rate their income as high or very high (ibid.).49 What are the users looking for in CWSs? As was worked out in Sect. 2.1.4, CWSs provide a spatial answer to the challenges of the modern flexible working world and the associated blurring and subjectification of work. They offer the users a possibility to structure their own work spatially and temporally and at the same time act as meeting spaces (cf. Baumann 2013, p. 82 f.). Accordingly, important reasons for visiting a CWS, as Spinuzzi et al. (2019, p. 115 f.) summarize in a review of existing scientific studies on CWSs, are the need for social contacts, access to a shared infrastructure and common resources, and opportunities for networking with potential customers, contractors, or other cooperation partners. Thus, CWSs represent an alternative to the workspaces home office and café for subjectified workers who organize their work spatially themselves, in order to escape the respective disadvantages such as distractions from work, social isola-

48 Following the argument of Jakonen et al. (2017) that coworkers with precarious employment relationships in the CWS do not necessarily look for community and encounters in the CWS, as they prioritize their work, the following could also be opposed at this point: Especially coworkers with precarious employment relationships could be underrepresented in the Global Coworking Survey, precisely because they would not take the time to answer such a survey. 49 Every second user (49%) estimates his/her income as neither high nor low (Foertsch 2017b). There are differences in income according to gender and employment status: Women and solo self-employed people tend to have lower incomes (ibid.).

48

2  Background and Characterization of Coworking Spaces

tion, or problems of self-motivation in relation to working from home or the lack of privacy in the café (cf. Spinuzzi 2012, p. 421 f.). Accordingly, CWSs are visited in order to separate work and life spatially and mentally and to achieve a better work-life balance, as well as to have a productive and professional work environment (Brown 2017, p. 118, 120). A driving force is also the desire to get in touch with “like-minded” professionals who face similar professional challenges (although they can be quite heterogeneous in terms of their professional background), in order to counteract professional isolation on the one hand and to benefit from the knowledge and social support of the other coworkers on the other hand (ibid.): “The ‘added-value’ of coworking predominantly lay [sic!] in sharing a workspace with people who had different and complementary experiences, skill-sets and contacts, but who shared similar values and outlooks” (Brown 2017, p. 120). Coworking thus facilitates professional establishment, promotes mutual learning, and increases social and professional integration for freelancers and self-employed people (Merkel and Oppen 2013, p. 5). The motives of the coworkers reflect the core functions of CWSs: CWSs are primarily workspaces for their users, with an added value of coworking lying in their significance as spaces of communitization. The latter is also evident in the results of the Global Coworking Survey: Among the main reasons for the decision to work in the chosen CWS, community and a social atmosphere are mentioned (Foertsch 2018). The benefits of coworking differ according to the employment status of the coworkers. While community in the CWS is most important for solo self-employed people (71%), employees and entrepreneurs with employees appreciate the social atmosphere in the CWS (79% and 68%, respectively), without wanting to become part of the community, as Foertsch puts it (ibid.). Also, which social interactions and forms of knowledge exchange the individual user seeks in the CWS vary (Brown 2017; Jakonen et al. 2017). How the users come to decide on a specific CWS as a place (and thus against other CWSs) is less researched. De Vaujany et al. (2019, p. 8) note in this regard, based on their autoethnographic experiences, that the name of the CWS or the photos on the website can appeal to one’s own feelings and desires and thus lead to the visit of the CWS: “[I]ndeed, it is often these seemingly irrational decisions that inform the decision-making process of potential customers.” These “irrational” components, apart from the purposive cost-benefit analysis, will be the focus of this work. CWSs, as became clear in this chapter, are the result and expression of the change in the world of work. As community-oriented flexible workspaces, CWSs respond to the flexibilization and the associated challenges of blurring and subjectification of work. They also reflect the flexibilization and aestheticization of

2.3  Characterization of the Coworkers

49

office workspaces. In addition to the primary core function of providing spaces for work, CWSs are characterized by being also spaces of communitization that are curated. In this context, coworking has established and differentiated itself in recent years: It is no longer a niche phenomenon, but rather “a new normal” (Ivaldi et al. 2018, p. 237) in terms of the way of working for oneself and together and the organization of work and community (cf. ibid.). Against this background, this work now deals with the spaces and the associated atmospheres of CWSs and asks what role they play in everyday life. For this purpose, the spatial atmospheres are taken into focus as connections between perceiving subjects and perceived spatial arrangements: Thus, on the one hand, the spaces and their effects are examined and, on the other hand, the perspective of the users of CWSs and how they access and create their own spaces and atmospheres. The investigation is carried out with regard to the core functions of CWSs, being spaces of work and spaces of community. The underlying theoretical terms and concepts are now discussed in the following chapter.

3

Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community

This chapter serves to present the theoretical reference concepts that are relevant in the context of this work. Since space and atmosphere are the central categories for this work, both concepts are first introduced in detail. First, in Sect. 3.1, the relational understanding of space is discussed in more detail. According to this, space is an arrangement of elements that is (re-)produced in action. Subsequently, the focus is set on the attuned or bodily felt space and the concept of atmosphere is explained, which underlies this work: According to this, atmosphere is a connection between perceiving subject and perceived object, the space (Sect. 3.2). Thereafter, in Sect. 3.3, the two perspectives on spaces and atmospheres—on the one hand, the spatial arrangement as objects of perception and, on the other hand, the space-acting subjects—are each examined in more detail by adding further theoretical concepts. Subsequently, in Sect. 3.4, additional theoretical concepts for the examination of spaces and the connection between perceiving subjects and spatial arrangements as objects of perception are presented: the sociology of practices and the setting concept. The final Sect. 3.5 is devoted to a third central term in the context of this work, namely that of community.

3.1 Space as a Social Construction “Space is, according to the approach represented here, a social construction. In this respect, there can be no the space, even the use of the singular is basically misleading and it would be more accurate to speak of spaces that exist like a playground for the child or—quite differently—for the mother or a caregiver at one geographical location.” (Herrmann 2010, p. 8, emphases in the original)

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 A. Bernhardt, Coworking Atmospheres, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41193-0_3

51

52

3  Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community

As the spread of CWSs shows, laptop work does not take place independently of concrete physical-material spaces at associated places. Thus, mobile-flexible work does not make offices meaningless (cf. Petendra 2015; Schroer 2010). The following explanations serve to develop the understanding of space that is used in the context of this work. This differs from the everyday understanding of space as a container space as well as from an understanding of space as pure relations between elements, as briefly explained in the first section (Sect. 3.1.1). Instead, the relational concept of space of the sociologist Martina Löw (2008, 2015) is used, which is explained in detail in the second section (Sect. 3.1.2). According to this, space is a relational arrangement of elements or bodies, or concretely of living beings and things, which means that besides the relation between the elements, the processes of space constitution also come into focus. In this understanding, space does not exist per se, but emerges in action and is thus a social construction. The development of the relational understanding of space is the basis for then working out the understanding of atmosphere in more detail in the following chapter.

3.1.1 Absolute, Relative and Relational Space Space is a basic sociological category that has changed its meaning in the course of the Spatial Turn in social sciences in the 1990s: Thus, space is now no longer regarded as given by nature, but as something socially emerging and effective (Herrmann 2010, p. 10). In addition to this modern understanding of space, which is also fundamental for this work, two other concepts of space have been established, which are briefly presented in the following.1 The two early spatial-theoretical perspectives of absolute and relative space come from physics and philosophy and have shaped the thinking about space in all disciplines as well as the everyday notions of space (Löw et al. 2008, p. 9). Absolute space corresponds to the everyday notion of space as a three-dimensional container or container space, in which people live (Herrmann 2010, p. 9). This already corresponds to the ancient spatial notions of Plato and Aristotle (cf. Schroer 2016, p. 31 ff.). Here, the idea of an empty container is underlying,

1 The

different conceptions of space are discussed in more detail, for example, by Edinger (2015), Fritsche et al. (2010), Herrmann (2010), Rau (2013) or Schroer (2009, 2016). Löw (2015), whose relational concept of space this work is based on, also deals extensively with the various spatial concepts.

3.1  Space as a Social Construction

53

which can be filled with content or elements (people, things, social processes) arbitrarily, without the content influencing the space (Fritsche et al. 2010, p. 12 f.). In this spatial notion, a dualism of space and matter is assumed: Space and body exist side by side (Löw et al. 2008, p. 9). Conceived as a container, space is finite and has clear boundaries (Edinger 2015, p. 25). An example of the understanding of absolute space in the context of CWSs is the open space, the team office or meeting room as closed, limited spaces (cf. ebd.). In contrast, a relative space does not presuppose an absolute fixed frame of reference (Rau 2013, p. 62), but space results from the relative positions or the arrangement of the elements or bodies (Löw 2015, p. 34; Löw et al. 2008, p. 9): “The position of each body results from its respective relation to another, i.e. always only ‘in relation to’ and not absolutely” (Schroer 2016, p. 40). Space is understood here as the sole result of the relational conditions between the elements or bodies (Fritsche et al. 2010, p. 13; Löw et al. 2008, p. 9). Other structural aspects are not taken into account: “An orientation to seemingly independent relational structures without taking into account different distributions of resources, as well as power relations and spatial structures would correspond to this spatial notion” (Fritsche et al. 2010, p. 13). Space and time are also relative or dependent on the observer and his/her standpoint in this understanding (Löw 2015, p. 33; Rau 2013, p. 62). Representatives of such a relative understanding of space are Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Albert Einstein (Edinger 2015, p. 25; Rau 2013, p. 62). The assumption of the relative position of the elements or bodies and the dependence of space on the reference system of the observers also applies to notions of relational space as the third spatial-theoretical perspective. Here, space is understood as a social phenomenon in a narrower sense: “Space itself [is] regarded as socially produced, thus both structuring society and structured by society and changing in the process” (Löw et al. 2008, p. 51). A relational understanding of space takes into account both the action and the structural aspect of space, by conceiving space in its duality (cf. Giddens 1988) as a result and as a condition of social processes (Fritsche et al. 2010, p. 14). By not thinking of space as a container, multiple spaces at one place are also conceivable. Thus, different spaces can emerge at the same place for different groups of people: The perception and experience of spaces and the relevance of the objects depend on social origin, gender or ethnicity (Löw et al. 2008, p. 10). This work follows this third relational understanding of space and considers spaces as social constructions. In this respect, the constitution of spaces in everyday action is put into the focus of conceptualinterest. Concretely, the spatial concept of Löw (2008, 2015) is referred to, which is now presented in more

54

3  Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community

detail in the following chapter. With regard to the description of the open spaces of the CWSs and the reconstruction of the spatial constructions by the CWS users (cf. Sect. 3.3.2), the open spaces as absolute container spaces are also referred to again and again in this work.2 This takes into account that everyday understanding usually refers to absolute spaces (cf. Schroer 2009, p. 136).

3.1.2 Relational Spatial Concept According to Löw3 Löw distinguishes her sociological spatial concept from the two early spatial conceptions that understand space as an absolute container space, in which the bodies are located, or as a relative space, determined solely by the positional relations of bodies (cf. Löw 2015, p. 24 ff.). Representing an understanding of relational space as a social construction, she goes a step further by including the processuality of the emergence of spaces. The theory of structuration by Anthony Giddens (1988) is the starting point of Löw’s spatial concept.4 Central to this is the duality of structure or of structure and action, formulated by Giddens, according to which structure and action mutually condition each other, instead of opposing each other in a dualism. Löw transfers this to space and formulates it as duality of space: Spaces do not simply exist, but they are constantly produced or constituted in action (Löw 2015, p. 172). At the same time, they also guide action as spatial structures (ibid.). In other words, this means that “spatial structures produce a form of action, which in the constitution of spaces reproduces those spatial structures” (ibid.). Spaces thus emerge in action and influence action as spatial structures. The process of constituting space is, according to Löw, thus structure-forming as well as structure-

2 In the following, I will use the terms container or container space, to emphasize that I am talking about absolute spaces. 3 Parts of this chapter and Sect. 3.2 as well as Sect. 4.3 were published in a condensed form in Bernhardt (2022). In addition, selected interview quotes from Sects. 9.1 and 10.2.3 are used for the contribution. This sheds light on the basis of the understanding of spaces and atmospheres presented here on the hybrid work spaces and associated atmospheres resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. 4 In addition, Giddens’ theory of structuration is also received as a practice theory, which emphasizes his assumption of social practices as the basis of the reproduction of the social (Wilz 2020, p. 4 f., on social practices cf. Sect. 3.4.1). Löw adopts various terms and definitions from Giddens in her spatial concept. However, she contradicts the Giddensian understanding of “space” as place, as will be explained below.

3.1  Space as a Social Construction

55

reproducing (ibid., p. 226). In this regard, Löw speaks of space as a “relational arrangement” of the spatial elements. By using the German term “(An)Ordnung” instead of arrangement, which can be translated as “order(ing)”, Löw emphasizes these two aspects: With order (“Ordnung”), the structural dimension of space is emphasized and with the process of ordering (“Anordnung”), the action dimension of the constitution of space (ibid., p. 166, 224). The elements of the relational spaces are, according to Löw, living beings and social goods: “Space is a relational arrangement of living beings and social goods” (ibid., p. 154). Löw (2015) refers to the non-human elements of space as social goods. She adopts the term from Reinhard Kreckel (2004), who understands social goods as “products of human action; or more precisely: social action; or even more precisely: products of present and especially past material and symbolic action” (p. 77, emphases in the original). Social goods can be further differentiated into primarily material (such as in the case of CWSs, for example, the tables, chairs, sofas, shelves, etc.) and primarily symbolic goods (such as, for example, a sign in the CWS self-service kitchen, which points out that the used dishes should be washed by oneself) (cf. Löw 2015, p. 153). The designation primarily indicates that social goods are always material and symbolic, but depending on the context, one or the other component comes more into play. In the context of placing, primarily material goods are meant: “Goods are arranged in their material property, but the arrangements can only be understood if the symbolic properties of the social goods are deciphered” (Löw 2015, p. 153). In addition to social goods, humans as well as other living beings, such as plants and animals, are elements of spatial constitution. The spatial arrangements of CWSs thus consist not only of connections of tables, chairs, sofas, shelves, etc., but also of present coworkers, members of the operating team, guests, different plants or (not uncommon for CWSs) dogs. An open space, for example, where almost every workstation is occupied, becomes a different space than an almost empty open space, where a single person is located—a present person will also perceive the densely occupied and the almost empty open space differently. In relation to the relational concept of space, it is important to note that not only the elements of space—social goods and humans (as well as other living beings)—are considered, but also the establishment of relationships between the elements (Löw 2015, p. 155). Löw pursues a procedural concept of space in the sense that she captures the how of the emergence of spaces (Löw 2015, p. 15). Space is constituted in Löw’s concept by two analytically distinguishable processes that usually occur simultaneously and mutually condition each other in everyday action: spacing and the operation of synthesis (ibid., p. 158 f.). The process of spacing encompasses the placing of social, primarily material goods and people (or other living beings) or

56

3  Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community

primarily symbolic markings to indicate goods and people (ibid., p. 158). This includes processes such as erecting, building or positioning (in relation to other placements) (ibid.). Here are a few examples in the context of CWSs: In the open space, tables, chairs, sofas, shelves and other artefacts are set up and arranged in relation to each other. Flexible workstations are symbolically marked as such by means of special stickers or picture frames with corresponding labels. A user positions himself at a free table with a view to the wall and his back to the other coworkers, another coworker sits at a table with four seats in the middle of the room diagonally opposite another user. In the evening, an open space transforms from a work to an event space by pushing the tables to the side against the wall, setting up the chairs in a circular shape on the resulting free space and converting the sofa corner into a stage. All these processes are spacing processes. On the other hand, space is constituted according to Löw by the operation of synthesis, i.e. summarising of social goods, people, groups of people, plants and/or animals into spaces through perception, imagination and memory processes (Löw 2015, p. 159). Thus, a newcomer links walls, doors, windows, tables, chairs, sofas, shelves, plants and present coworkers to a space when entering the open space, before he places himself at an unpersonalised, marked as “flex desk” table. This example shows that syntheses influence spacing in everyday action. After the newcomer has settled down and set up his workstation in the course of further spacing processes, he pauses briefly: In the bodily presence, the newcomer feels the concentrated working atmosphere of the space in the context of the synthesis, which drives him to work. The operation of synthesis enables “ensembles of social goods or people to be perceived, remembered or abstracted as an element, and accordingly to be included as a building block in the construction of space” (Löw 2015, p. 159). However, the synthesis does not take place immediately, but is, as Löw emphasises with reference to Pierre Bourdieu (among others 1991), “socially pre-structured by spatial imaginations, institutionalised spatial constructions and the class-, gender- and culture-specific habitus” (Löw 2015, p. 225). Perception means for Löw “a process of simultaneous emanation of social goods or people and the perceptual activity of bodily sensing” (Löw 2015, p. 195 f., emphases in the original). In this respect, perception is not only shaped by habitus and social structures, but also influenced by the outward effect of the social goods and living beings. By taking into account both aspects in the perception process, the outward effect of the arrangement and the perceptual activity, Löw wants to overcome the split between object- and subject-oriented (ibid., p. 196), which is also relevant for this work. The phenomenon of atmosphere that goes along with this will be discussed in more detail in the following Sect. 3.2.

3.1  Space as a Social Construction

57

While the dynamics of spaces and their constitution have been emphasized so far, it is equally central to note that everyday action is highly repetitive (cf. Löw 2015, p. 161 ff.). Here, routines play an important role, through which spaces are constituted in the same way over and over again (ibid., p. 166). Referring again to Giddens (1988), Löw (2015) emphasizes the importance of such “regular social practices” (p. 163)5 for the acting human being with regard to the habitualization of one’s own action as well as for the institutions with regard to the reproduction of institutionalized arrangments (cf. ibid.). Following Giddens’ distinction between a practical and a discursive consciousness, Löw states that with regard to routines, the constitution of spaces usually occurs from a practical consciousness, i.e. (in contrast to the discursive consciousness) without conscious reflection (ibid., p. 161). However, for the scientific investigation, Löw’s observation is also important that a part of the knowledge about spaces, which is controlled by the practical consciousness in everyday life, can also be reflected and thus transformed into a discursive consciousness: people can understand and explain how they constitute spaces (ibid., p. 162). This makes it possible to ask CWS users about their spatial action in the context of this work. Through routines, institutionalized arrangements are reproduced in action (Löw 2015, p. 163). Conversely, the arrangements that underlie synthesis and spacing are often highly prearranged: Institutionalized spaces exist when the arrangements have effects beyond one’s own action and result in standardized spacings and operations of synthesis (ibid., p. 164). Referring to Berger and Luckmann (2007), Löw (2015, p. 164) calls institutionalized spaces objectifications, that is, they are experienced as the product of human activity and are “comprehensible to both the producer and other people as elements of their common world” (Berger and Luckmann 2007, p. 36). Following the relational understanding of space, not only arrangements of things, but also arrangements of people can be institutionalized (Löw 2015, p. 163). CWSs can be regarded as institutionalized (work) spaces (cf. Pohler 2012). The arrangements of tables, chairs, characteristic social goods, plants and people and the external effects of the arrangements are similar in different CWSs and even worldwide (cf. also Sect. 2.2.5). Along with this, the processes of spatial constitution are also strongly institutionalized. The everyday placements of the users and the allowed behaviors in the CWS are regulated with regard to fix-desk and flex-desk memberships. For example, it is often clearly defined where flex-

5 Cf.

the concept of social practices in Sect. 3.4.

58

3  Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community

desk users can place themselves in the CWS (through corresponding markings or designated flex-desk areas) and how they have to leave their place (clean-desk policy). Also, the spaces are prearranged with regard to the synthesis. The newcomer synthesizes a potential flexible workplace through its positioning in the CWS, a corresponding marking as a flex-desk and through the unpersonalized table surface. Through corresponding positioning of one’s own body and/or social goods, he or she in turn marks the place as an occupied territory to others. Such syntheses and spacings are not only valid for a specific CWS over time, but also occur in different CWSs at various locations in a similar way. Through routines, users and operators reproduce the institutionalized work spaces of CWSs in everyday action. In relation to the duality of space, we have so far discussed the space-constituting action (spacing and the operation of synthesis), which is structure-forming and at the same time reproduces structures. The spatial structures, in turn, enable action and at the same time limit possibilities for action. The spatial structures are (in addition to political, economic or legal structures) part of the social structure as a whole (Löw 2015, p. 171 f.).6 They exist when the arrangements of living beings and social goods are codified in rules, secured by (material and symbolic) resources and recursively embedded in institutions, such as CWSs (ibid., p. 171). According to Löw, following the duality of space, spatial structures reproduce themselves recursively, i.e. the rules and resources that underlie them create them anew over and over again (ibid., p. 226). With regard to CWSs, an example would be that in the quiet open space, the rule of being quiet produces quiet work practices, which in turn reproduce silence (see the results section, Sect. 8.2.1). Further examples of rules in the CWS are the already mentioned flex-desk regulation and the associated clean-desk policy. Rules refer to the constitution of meaning, but can also have a sanctioning character in relation to the possibilities for action (Löw 2015, p. 167), as in the case of the silent CWS work space, a ban on talking, which restricts action: Here, no loud activities are allowed. Rules, however, also enable action: Thus, by the ban on talking, one can work concentratedly for oneself without disturbances. Rules can be explicitly codified, or they have an implicit character, which is typical for CWSs, and refer to “procedures of negotiation processes in social relations” (ibid.).

6 With

the term structures, Löw refers again to Giddens (1988). However, she understands structures “not like Giddens independent of time and space, but as detached from place and time” (Löw 2015, p. 168), in order to do justice to the relational understanding of space.

3.1  Space as a Social Construction

59

Löw also distinguishes conceptually space from place. According to her, a place denotes “a spot, a location, concretely nameable, usually geographically marked” (Löw 2015, p. 199, 224). The (unique) place is for Löw a prerequisite, goal and result of space constitutions: “Places emerge or spaces produce places, and these are at the same time the prerequisite for any space constitution” (ibid., p. 203). Places are created by placements, but they are not identical with the placement, insofar as they, according to Löw, remain for a certain time even without the placed element (ibid., p. 198). In the context of perception and memory, the social goods and living beings are synthesized together with the places where they are placed, i.e. there is no separation of place and placed element (ibid., p. 199). At the same place, different spaces can be synthesized depending on the habitus, but also on the own localization of the synthesizers (see ibid., p. 200 f.). With Löw’s relational concept of space, not only the dualism of action and space as structure, but also the separation between social and material space is overcome. Löw emphasizes that she does not make an analytical separation of social and material space, but rather starts from a social space that has material and symbolic components (Löw 2015, p. 15). Since spaces are constituted in action (i.e. through spacing or operation of synthesis), they are always social (Löw 2018, p. 44; Löw et al. 2008, p. 64). In addition, in the relational understanding of space, humans are assigned a double function: Humans not only construct spaces, but they are also themselves part of the spatial construction. They link not only things, but also other (self-acting) humans or groups of humans to spaces (Löw et al. 2008, p. 64). Thus, as a placed element, the human being is part of the space and as a placed body, also has a materiality. In contrast to objects, he has the peculiarity of placing himself and changing his placement as well as (as a placed element) influencing the spatial constructions through non-, para- and verbal expressions (Löw 2018, p. 44). For the present study, CWSs are considered as institutionalized spaces following Löw’s relational understanding of space. As objectifiable objectifications, they are located at specific places and characterized by standardized spacings and operations of synthesis, which are supported by corresponding spatial structures. The spaces of coworking consist of human and non-human elements and are constituted by the operators, coworkers and other people present in action. Although it can be assumed that the coworkers have similar spatial preferences and thus synthesize comparatively similar spaces when they have voluntarily visited the CWSs, the synthesized spaces are nevertheless different and lead to different uses of space within the framework of spacing. Thus, (laptop)workers at

60

3  Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community

the CWS places constitute different relational spaces by including virtual spaces7. In this work, two CWSs as concrete places with identifiable container spaces are at the center of attention, whereby the spaces in their construction are examined more closely, as well as the perspective of the users as spatially acting subjects, who synthesize and use the CWS spaces in their everyday work. As a connection between the perceived spatial arrangements and the perceiving subjects, atmospheres come into focus of the observation.

3.2 Atmosphere as a Connection between Subject and Space8 “One can […] say that there is a relationship between environmental qualities and states of mind. What connects the objective and the subjective side here are the atmospheres.” (Böhme 2018, p. 276)

In this work, a special relevance is attributed to the atmospheres of CWSs, as these, according to the initial thesis, play a significant role in everyday CWS life. How exactly the meaning of coworking atmospheres in everyday CWS life is presented, is explored in the present study. For this purpose, it is necessary to define the concept of atmosphere more closely. In everyday language, the term atmosphere is used interchangeably with other expressions such as mood, well-being or state of mind, ambiance, tone or other similar terms (cf. Anderson 2009, p. 78). Also in the scientific literature, the differentiation of the terms, for example, in mood as directed to the “inside” and the human well-being and atmosphere as the “outside” and thus the environmental qualities, is not always unproblematic (Julmi 2015, p. 46). For this study, the focus is on the concept of atmosphere, but

7 The

space of bodily presence can be extended by the virtual space when using desktops, laptops, tablets or smartphones, which metaphorically encompasses “(re-)presentations on the internet” (Edinger and Reimer 2015, p. 206). Also in this space, spatial experiences are made and corresponding states of mind are generated, for example by listening to music using headphones (Böhme 2013b, p. 125). In a relational understanding of space, virtual space is real existent, whereby the connection of material and virtual space can be additive or create a new, hybrid space (Edinger and Reimer 2015, p. 208). 8 Parts of this chapter were published in a condensed form in Bernhardt (2022).

3.2  Atmosphere as a Connection between Subject and Space

61

at the same time it is acknowledged that it is closely intertwined with the other terms9, without strictly delimiting it. In this work, reference is made to the scientific concept of atmosphere, in order to conceptually grasp the affective quality of spaces and collective affects (cf. Anderson 2009) more closely and to consider the associated subjective feelings and the spatial experience and appropriation. In doing so, the understanding of atmosphere used here takes into account both subjective bodily sensing and experiencing of spaces and the external effects of relational spaces (which becomes figurative in the expression “tuned space”) conceptually equally, by viewing them as two sides of a phenomenon that can only be separated analytically. This view is also shared by the philosopher and founder of the new aesthetics Gernot Böhme, whose concept of atmosphere, along with that of Löw, is presented in more detail below: He conceives of atmosphere as an “and”, whereby environmental qualities and human well-being are related to each other (Böhme 2013c, p. 22 f.) and thus as a connection between perceiving subject and perceived object or space. It is not only felt as something third between subject and object, but also constituted by both (Rauh 2018, p. 129). With such an understanding of atmosphere, the separation of subject and object or between social and material world is undermined and the associated dualism overcome (cf. Anderson 2009, p. 78; Brandl 2010, p. 191; Rauh 2018, p. 129). The present chapter is structured as follows: After the concepts of atmosphere by Böhme and by Löw (Sect. 3.2.1) as connections between subject and space have been introduced, Sect. 3.2.2 deals with the creation of atmospheres within the framework of aesthetic work. There, a conceptual sharpening of what curators and curating comprise is also carried out—terms that originally come from the museum and art field and are now also used, as shown, in the field by the CWS operators. The importance of curating as the management of atmospheres is conceptually sharpened. Sect. 3.2.3 once again makes the connection to the perceiving subjects and characterizes them as producers of their own (desired) atmospheres. The present section is finally concluded by working out the methodological implications of such an understanding of atmosphere as a connection between perceiving subject and object (Sect. 3.2.4).

9 Charlotte

Renda (2018), for example, makes a conceptual classification in distinction from the concepts of collective emotions and emotional climate and uses moods and atmospheres synonymously.

62

3  Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community

3.2.1 Philosophical-Aesthetic and Spatial-Sociological Approach to Atmosphere Above all, philosophy, and especially phenomenology, has dealt with the phenomenon of atmosphere as a specific way of “human beingin the world” (Böhme 2013b, p. 105; going back to Heidegger 2006) (Heibach 2012, p. 13), whereby the sensual experience of the world is emphasized through perception (Michels 2015, p. 256).10 This also applies to Böhme (2001, 2013a, 2013b, 2016a), whose understanding of atmosphere is fundamental for the present work. He sees atmosphere as a basic concept and central object of knowledge of a new aesthetics (also the title of the essay Böhme 2013c). This new aesthetics, understood as aisthesis, stands opposed to the classical judgment aesthetics as a theory of art or the artwork and the “critique of taste” (Böhme 2013c, p. 41). Thus, the new aesthetics does not limit itself like the judgment aesthetics to the consideration of few atmospheres (the beautiful, the sublime, the aura and possibly the picturesque), because, according to Böhme (2013c, p. 35), “there are many more atmospheres, not to say infinitely many […]”. In this respect, Böhme also takes into account not only the perception of atmospheres within the framework of reception aesthetics, but also the production of atmospheres within the framework of production aesthetics as part of aesthetic work (see below Sect. 3.2.2). Perception, Böhme understands as “experience of the presence of people, objects and environments” (Böhme 2013c, p. 25) in the bodily presence and thus includes the affective involvement by the perceived and the corporeality (ibid., p. 47). The new aesthetics thus understood, with regard to the receiving subjects, represents a “theory of perception in the unabbreviated sense” (ibid., p. 25). With regard to the producers, the new aesthetics is a general theory of aesthetic work. Aesthetic work, Böhme defines as the production of atmospheres (ibid.). In the following, Böhme’s reception aesthetics will be considered. With reference to Hermann Schmitz (2014, 2015), Böhme understands atmospheres as “captivating powers of feeling, spatial carriers of moods” (Böhme 2013c,

10 For

an overview of different concepts of atmosphere, see e.g. Griffero (2014), Michels (2015) or Julmi (2015). Literature on Affect Theory and Affect Studies is excluded here, as this work is interested in the overarching connections with regard to the phenomenon of atmosphere and less in processual dynamics (cf. Wiesse and Pfaller 2018, p. 7 f.).

3.2  Atmosphere as a Connection between Subject and Space

63

p. 29), which the subject experiences in his bodily presence.11 With regard to the receiving subjects, Böhme emphasizes the mediating function of atmospheres as “object of perception” (Böhme 2001, p. 50) with respect to the relationship between subject and object. Atmosphere represents in this understanding “common reality of the perceiver and the perceived” (Böhme 2013c, p. 34) as a connecting link: “This and, this between both, that which relates environmental qualities and states of mind to each other, these are the atmospheres” (ibid., p. 23, emphasis in the original). Böhme (2013b, p. 122) specifies atmospheres in this regard more precisely in the ambiguity of the expression “to be”: “The central concept from which the phenomenon of bodily presence must be described is the concept of state of mind. We have the extraordinary luck that the German expression sich befinden contains an ambiguity that corresponds to the phenomenon bodily presence in space in the best way. Sich befinden means on the one hand to be located in a space and means on the other hand to feel this or that way, to be in this or that mood. Both are connected and are in a certain way one: In my state of mind I sense in what kind of space I am located.” (ibid., emphases in the original)

In the atmosphere, the relationship of environmental qualities and states of mind is expressed, which according to Böhme constitutes the central moment of bodily presence (Böhme 2013b, p. 125). There are no spaces without atmospheres: “The space of bodily presence is always a tuned space, there is an atmosphere in it—even if it is only the atmosphere of dreary boredom” (ibid., p. 18). Böhme (2013b, p. 122) prefers the term atmosphere over the expression tuned space, because the latter suggests already an existing space that receives a hue, the mood. With atmosphere, the being in such is emphasized and with it the bodily sensing, in which the bodily space is spanned (ibid.). Atmospheres are sensed by the perceiving subject by being affectively affected by them (Böhme 2001, p. 46). They receive their final determination by the reaction of the affected subject: It can engage with them or flee, by closing itself off from their influence or by withdrawing from it by spatial distance (Böhme 2013b, p. 25 f.).

11 Schmitz

(2014, p. 30) understands atmosphere as “the occupation of a spaceless space or area in the realm of experienced presence.” Böhme criticizes Schmitz for viewing atmospheres as “free-floating” (Böhme 2013c, p. 30) and not as emanating from the objects and also for not taking into account the production aesthetics in relation to the creation of atmospheres (ibid., p. 30 f.).

64

3  Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community

In Böhme’s understanding, atmospheres are thus subjectively felt in one’s own perception, at the same time as precisely what emanates from other people or things (Böhme 2013b, p. 132). Böhme also speaks of the ecstasies of a thing, to describe the outward effect of an object and understands them as ways in which a thing emerges from itself (Böhme 2013c, p. 33). Examples of ecstasies are color, smell, extension or shape of an object (ibid.). Thus, atmospheres cannot simply be dismissed as something subjective in the sense of projections of the inner mood of the perceiving subjects. This becomes clear from the fact that persons can be affected and attuned by atmospheres they encounter (Böhme 2013b, p. 25). In this respect, Böhme attributes a certain quasi-objectivity to atmospheres: Although atmospheres are perceived subjectively, they are intersubjectively experiential, i.e. different subjects can communicate about atmospheres they experience together (ibid., p. 25 f.). They are experienced as independent of the subject (at least in the first encounter) according to Böhme’s understanding (ibid., p. 26). Feelings are central to perceiving atmospheres: Böhme notes that the character of an atmosphere can only be determined in affective involvement (Böhme 2001, p. 52). The way a space emotionally appears characterizes the atmosphere of a space (Böhme 2013b, p. 18). According to Böhme (2013b, p. 122), atmospheres can be sensed through spatial categories, such as width or narrowness, openness or enclosure. But also other expressions of mood can describe the “bodily felt spaces of presence” (ibid., p. 123): For example, the atmosphere in the CWS can be hectic, cozy, warm, serious or cheerful. Böhme (2013b, p. 18) classifies at least five types of characters or mood qualities (see also ibid., p. 124): A) Moods (such as melancholy or cheerfulness) B) Synaesthesias (such as warmth or heaviness)12 C) Movement impressions (such as narrowness or width) D) Social characters (such as (culture-specific) coziness, petty-bourgeoisness, poverty or lordliness) and E) Communicative characters (such as tension or calmness) The atmosphere in CWSs is especially influenced by the interpersonal, communicative dimension. Especially with interpersonal atmospheres, Böhme argues, it

12 Synaesthesias

are sensory qualities that belong to several sensory domains at the same time, such as warmth. The warmth of a space can be created differently through temperature, colors or materials.

3.2  Atmosphere as a Connection between Subject and Space

65

becomes clear that the involved subjects constantly co-produce the atmosphere (cf. for this and the following explanations of the paragraph Böhme 2013b, p. 33). Here he has a rather similar view to Löw: The involved people are at the same time elements of the arrangement and co-producers of the atmosphere on the object side as well as the atmosphere sensually perceiving subjects on the subject side. Here Böhme distinguishes the atmospheres of interpersonal communication from “external atmospheres” (under which he counts the atmosphere of church spaces, those of twilight or those of a city as examples), into which one can enter, but also withdraw from. According to Böhme, the subject is less involved in the production of the atmosphere in the latter than rather a “resonance board”. In contrast to these external atmospheres, the communicative atmospheres can hardly be attributed a quasi-objectivity and an objectification is therefore difficult. Likewise, interpersonal atmospheres, Böhme continues, can be more difficult to describe by the participating subjects, since they are involved in the atmosphere and constantly co-determine it. As a shared space of common mood, interpersonal atmospheres establish a connection between communication partners before they enter into conversation and create the security of moving on shared ground (Böhme 2013b, p. 41 f.). With regard to the generation of atmospheres of interpersonal communication, the how of the behavior is especially important, i.e. the melody, pitch or intonation of the voice, the body posture towards the other person, the “play of glances” or movement suggestions that emanate from a person (ibid., p. 43). How can atmosphere be grasped with the relational concept of space by Löw? As already mentioned, the synthesis process of perceiving is important here, insofar as it connects the perceiving subject, its perceptual activity as well as the perceived arrangements and their radiance. All senses are involved in the perception process. Here the impressions condense into a “feeling of the environment in which one is located” (Löw 2015, p. 195), in which the placed goods as well as other present ones also influence the feeling through their outward effect (Böhme’s ecstasies) (ibid.). With regard to atmosphere, Löw establishes a similar conceptual connection as Böhme with the “and” definition. Thus, she also refers to Böhme when it comes to grasping the phenomenon of atmosphere (cf. Löw 2015, p. 206–209). As a starting point of Löw’s understanding of atmosphere, she states that on the level of perception, often not a space as an arrangement in itself is experienced, but rather its atmospheric quality: “One can feel the inclusive and exclusive character of spaces and also the end of spaces. One can sensually perceive the beginning of new spaces” (Löw 2015, p. 204). Löw characterizes atmospheres in this regard as a potentiality of spaces, which arises “in the interaction between

66

3  Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community

constructing-perceiving human beings and the symbolic-material effect of the perceived” (ibid., p. 229). Thus, for Löw, following Böhme, atmospheres represent something third, something of their own, that stands between perceiving subject and perceived object. From the object’s point of view, atmospheres are conceived as perceived “external effect of social goods and human beings in their spatial arrangment” at places (ibid., p. 205). This external effect occurs in a common arrangement and not as individual effects next to each other. In this regard, atmospheres require a “simultaneity of perceiving subject and perceivable object” as it also finds its expression in Böhme’s concept of atmosphere in the bodily presence (ibid., p. 206). From the subject’s point of view, atmosphere is created by the active perception of the external effect of social goods in the arrangement and/or of interactions between human beings. The perceived potentiality or mood of the space can in turn influence or “re-tune” one’s own feelings and flows into synthesis and spacing (ibid., p. 205 ff.). Löw (2015, p. 208 f.) criticizes Böhme’s concept of atmosphere for attributing a universal character to atmospheres and for considering them objectively perceptible: “[T]he bodily feeling is not analyzed by him in its social dimension. The modes of action of atmospheres are not perceived by all people in the same way, but the perception of spaces is always socially pre-structured” (ibid., p. 209).13 As already shown, Löw (2015, p. 197) does not understand perception as an immediate process, but rather as a highly selective and constructive process, which is habitually pre-structured by education and socialization. In this regard, different people at a place can synthesize very different spaces and atmospheres associated with them. With regard to the

13 Similarly,

Reckwitz (2012, p. 255) warns with reference to Böhme against a one-sided— produced by the spatial structures—understanding of atmospheres: “The pitfall to regard spaces as mere producers of affects in receiving human beings needs to be avoided.” Thus, he also emphasizes with a praxeological perspective that affects only arise in the relationship between space and user through the practical appropriation. In doing so, implicit cultural concepts and routines of these users are activated, which in turn influence and focus perceptions and sensations (ibid.). In this regard, Reckwitz states: “Atmospheres are thus always already connected to a specific cultural sensitivity and attentiveness on the part of the carriers of practices, a specific sensitivity for perceptions, impressions and affections” (ibid.). However, as became clear in the context of the above explanations of Böhme’s concept of atmosphere, it is to be relativized that Böhme explicitly includes the perceiving subject in his concept of atmosphere. Moreover, it became clear from Böhme’s remarks on interpersonal atmosphere that he does not attribute a quasi-objectivity to all atmospheres.

3.2  Atmosphere as a Connection between Subject and Space

67

arrangments and their effects, the composition of atmospheres in the context of aesthetic work will be examined more closely below.

3.2.2 Production of Atmospheres in the Context of Aesthetic Work In the following, the production aesthetics of atmospheres will be examined more closely, insofar as “the actual experience is increasingly structured by the manipulation of sensory stimuli” (Illouz 2018, p. 42). The construction of atmospheres takes place with reference to Löw’s concept of space within the framework of Spacing through the placement of social goods and people as well as through the symbolic-material design—for example, through the material structure of the furnishings, which entails a different symbolic effect (Löw 2015, p. 193). As Böhme (2013b, p. 154) also notes on an example of two differently designed bookstores: “The spatial organization and especially the different materials actually cause one to feel like in different worlds.” Löw (2015, p. 193) cites the example of the different effects of a marble and a wooden staircase, which create different spaces. As both Böhme and Löw point out, atmospheres are produced or staged for perception: “However, since what is perceived is usually not simply lying around, but is staged for perception—this affects both the design of the individual goods and people and their relational placement—atmospheres are also socially produced” (Löw 2015, p. 229). Accordingly, the spatial arrangements of people and non-human space are consciously pre-arranged with regard to their perceived radiance or outward effect. This is done in addition to self-presentation through staging work or aesthetic work: “It turns out that the social goods and people are not only placed or place themselves, but these placement processes are prepared by staging work or are a selfpresentation. By designing the appearance of the social goods or people, their outward effect is prepared and an attempt is made to create the atmosphere that is to be realized in perception.” (Löw 2015, p. 215) “Aesthetic work consists in giving things, environments or even the human being himself such properties that make something emanate from them. I.e. it is about making atmospheres by working on the object.” (Böhme 2013c, p. 35 emphasis in original)

Thus, among others, stage designers, (interior) architects, designers or coworking hosts arrange spatial arrangements in the context of curating in such a way that the linked arrangement is not only functional and recognized as (institutionalized)

68

3  Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community

space, but also brings along corresponding mood qualities. In the context of aesthetic work, “things, spaces, arrangements are designed with regard to the affective involvement that a viewer, recipient, consumer, etc. is supposed to experience through them” (Böhme 2001, p. 53). This is accompanied by the following observation: Although atmospheres are unstable, insofar as they (with regard to reception aesthetics) emerge in the co-presence of perceivers and perceived, they also testify to a certain stability (Michels 2015, p. 261). Thus, despite the diversity and complexity of atmospheres, similarities and patterns can be detected in their compositions (ibid.). This is also evident, as shown in Sect. 2.2.5 for CWSs: Here, a characteristic design can be identified, which distinguishes itself from the conventional office design of the old world of work. Although similarities can be observed with regard to the CWS aesthetics and although they are functionally equivalent institutionalized spaces, this does not mean that they are alike in terms of their atmospheres. This is discussed by Böhme (Böhme 2013b, pp. 152 ff.) using the example of two bookstores and states: “Functionally speaking, bookstores are all the same: They are terminals of the large assortments. But in their atmosphere they are not the same. On the contrary: Their functional equality frees and makes necessary the differences of their aesthetic appearance. Precisely because the differences between two bookstores can hardly be articulated functionally, they have to be articulated in design. The competition is a competition of atmospheres: here wood, rustic, warm light, there chrome, glass, steel and neon lighting.” (ibid., p. 154)

This example illustrates the importance of atmospheres as an affective means of distinction for institutionalized spaces. And this applies, presumably, in a similar way to CWSs: Despite similarities in terms of aesthetics, the atmospheres of concrete CWS locations also serve as a means of distinction from other CWSs. In doing so, atmospheres are not only spatially produced, but also linguistically through words or images (cf. Böhme 2013c, p. 38). Thus, in the CWS context, the self-presentations on the CWS website or in social media are also part of the aesthetic work of coworking hosts. Reckwitz (2014, p. 142) also speaks of aesthetic work in relation to creative work, which he defines as “the associative creation of meanings, which are linked to material carriers (words, images, sounds, buildings, behaviors) and to sensory perceptions and emotions, i.e. the production of aesthetic objects and aesthetic events” (ibid.). Aesthetic work, in Reckwitz’s understanding, is associated with a post-romantic work concept, in which satisfying work must also be creative work (and thus varied and challenging) and which, in the sense of a normative subjecti-

3.2  Atmosphere as a Connection between Subject and Space

69

fication of work, presupposes a “creatively motivated subject” (ibid.). Transferred to the CWS context, following Reckwitz, not only the non-human space and its atmospheric effect as well as the self in the context of curating are designed as aesthetic work, but also situations or events as aesthetic events. When spaces are consciously arranged with regard to the atmospheres they create for certain moods, there is also the danger of manipulation (Böhme 2013b, p. 152). Thus, atmospheres are always phenomena that guide action, that direct human behavior and have an “eminently strong potential for manipulation” (Heibach 2012, p. 15 f.).14 In this respect, aesthetic workers have a large, usually implicit practical knowledge of objects and their ecstasies or external effects (Böhme 2013c, p. 35). With this knowledge also comes a significant power, insofar as the design of atmospheres unconsciously manipulates moods and arouses emotions (ibid., p. 39). With reference to the staging of atmospheres in the context of aesthetic work, Böhme criticizes the aesthetic economy, as explained below.

3.2.2.1 Böhme’s Critique of the Aesthetic Economy: The Staging Value of Goods The current capitalism as an aesthetic economy15 is characterized by Böhme by the fact that it relies on the increase of desires and that atmospheres and their staging gain special importance (cf. also Reckwitz 2016). By desires he means such needs that do not come to rest by satisfaction, but are increased (Böhme 2013b, p. 174). Characteristic for the aesthetic economy is that “the aesthetic work makes up a large part of the total social work, i.e. a large part of the work performed at all [serves] no longer the production of goods, but their staging […]—or the production of goods, whose use value itself lies in their use for staging—of people, of public, of corporate image, etc.” (Böhme 2013c, p. 45 emphasis in the original)

14  Christiane

Heibach (2012, p. 10–12) distinguishes those staged or, as she puts it, intended atmospheres, which are media-structured, from emergent phenomena of physical atmospheres in the sense of “natural” atmospheres as well as social atmospheres (Böhme’s interpersonal atmospheres) as “atmospheres that in the and through the interaction of persons (with other persons, but also with spaces, things, environments of all kinds) arise” (ibid., p. 11, emphases in the original). 15 Böhme (2013b, p. 173) speaks of the current capitalism of waste as an aesthetic economy: “It receives the epithet aesthetic, because the decisive value that is produced in this capitalist phase is the staging value” (ibid., emphasis in the original).

70

3  Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community

Based on Wolfgang Fritz Haug’s (2009) Critique of Commodity Aesthetics, Böhme refers to the distinction made by Karl Marx between the use value and the exchange value of goods (Böhme 2013c, p. 45). As a third form or subform of use value, Böhme now introduces the scenic or staging value of goods: “The staging value has its origin in commodity aesthetics, i.e. the special form that is given to the commodity beyond its usefulness, in order to be attractive in the exchange context. The special thing about the staging value is that this aesthetic equipment of the commodity retains its value in the context of life: It serves here the equipment of life itself.” (Böhme 2013b, p. 173)

By this, Böhme means the staging value as a specific use value of goods, which does not lie in their usefulness, but rather they are used in their scenic function “as part of a style, as elements for creating atmospheres” (Böhme 2013c, p. 46). Although there have always been goods with a high scenic value, it is characteristic for the aesthetic economy, according to Böhme, that goods always have a scenic value and that this dominates the other values or even is the only value that a good has (ibid.). Goods and spaces as a whole serve the staging of atmospheres. This becomes clear in the example of shopping malls (cf. Böhme 2016b) as “fantastic pseudo-realities” (Böhme 2013c, p. 47), but also with regard to aestheticized office workspaces, whose spatial arrangements and associated external effects are aimed at creating a positive, sensual experience (cf. Sect. 2.1.3), which is in the interest of the company, and which can lead to a “playgroundization” of the office (Wiesse and Pfaller 2018, p. 3). In this respect, Böhme criticizes the aesthetic economy as a waste economy and, associated with it, a “critique of the appropriation, manipulation and suggestion that is done to those who are exposed to the production of atmospheres” (Böhme 2013c, p. 47). Other authors make similar diagnoses as Böhme. For example, Eva Illouz (2018) speaks of emodities or emotional goods in the context of goods that have a high scenic value: “Our view is […], that goods are designed to evoke feelings and affects, whether these are deep or shallow, of transient or lasting nature, and that these emotional goods are also consumed as such.” (Illouz 2018, p. 39, emphasis in the original). Reckwitz (2016, p. 176) also states that in the late modern society, which “stimulates the affects massively”, the design of atmospheres has a key importance: Spaces are thereby “produced and designed […] with the aim that they have a certain affective effect” (ibid.). Again and again, there are conceptual parallels between Böhme and Reckwitz both with regard to aesthetic work and to aesthetic economy: For the latter, Reckwitz also emphasizes that it is

3.2  Atmosphere as a Connection between Subject and Space

71

characterized by processes of sensual-emotional affectivity and thus by processes of aestheticization of the economic (Reckwitz 2014, p. 140). If atmospheres become affective consumer goods in aesthetic capitalism (cf. Heibach 2012, p. 10), then the question arises for the present work to what extent this applies to the production of coworking atmospheres and their reception. With regard to the design and organization of atmospheres in the context of aesthetic work, another term is relevant in this respect, which is also used in the coworking field and has its origin in the art and museum sector: curating.

3.2.2.2 Curating as Atmosphere Management “A collection of objects, even of artworks, is not yet an exhibition. Only when objects are selected, related to each other and presented, do arbitrary things form an exhibition. The necessary conceptual and practical preliminary work for this is what makes curating as a technique of cultural management.” (Finckh 2011, p. 212)

That curating in the context of coworking is both a field term and a scientific concept to characterize the activities of the coworking hosts was already explained in Sect. 2.2.3. Referring to the previous explanations, curating is understood as a form of aesthetic work and the coworking hosts as curators and thus as aesthetic workers. In the context of curating, atmospheres are (co-)produced and organized. The following will examine the terms of the curators and curating and their current meaning in more detail. Curators are generally administrators or, in relation to the art field, the “custodians of museum collections” (von Bismarck 2004, p. 108). The term has its origin in the Latin word “curare” for “care” or “nurture” (von Bismarck 2012, p. 47): Curators therefore not only manage, but also take care of objects. Beatrice von Bismarck (2004) defines the task area of the curators in general as “the collecting, ordering, preserving and mediating of objects that are in the custody of an art institution” (p. 108). The professional profile of the curators has changed: As a prototypical figure of the project-based polis (Boltanski and Chiapello 2006), they now combine, according to Oliver Marchart (2012, p. 31), the roles of project organizers or consultants as well as of autonomous artists. In this regard, Reckwitz (2014, p. 116 f.) also diagnoses a blurring of the social figures of the artists and the curators and, as a result, the emergence of the hybrid figure of the artist-curator. He explains:

72

3  Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community “The curator sees himself in his activity as an arranger and intellectual commentator as an artist, as an exhibition auteur, and this has in turn provoked a counter-reaction of a takeover of curatorial activities by the artists. The ‘artist-curator’ resembles the figure of the director and is, in a sense, an artist subject of the second order: Beyond the artistic arrangement of material, it is now about the arrangement of already existing artworks and situations in the three-dimensional-museal as well as intellectual space. The goal is always the creation of a spatial, atmospheric and intellectual context, which also includes a coordination and communicative networking of persons, media instances and patrons.” (Reckwitz 2014, p. 117, emphasis in the original)

Reckwitz emphasizes that the management of atmospheres and thus of affects is an elementary task of the artist-curators as well as of the postmodern artists in general (ibid., p. 117 f.). While since the 1960s/70s the free curators shaped the professional image, with which the figure of the “genius curator” or “curator artist” (Marchart 2012, p. 33) emerged, who oriented themselves on the traditional artist image and in which “the trademark of one’s own name” (ibid., p. 37) was central, for the current development also an interest in team-based, collective curating (by “artist curators” (ibid., p. 33)) is characteristic (cf. ibid., p. 33 ff.). Thus, since the 1990s, a trend towards curatorial teams or groups can be observed (von Bismarck 2012, p. 55). With curating, the focus is now on the activity and not on the performers, which is essential for the current meaning of the term (von Bismarck 2004, p. 108). Thus, practices of curating are no longer tied to the curators as a professional profession, but can also be exercised by all others active in the art field, as von Bismarck (2004, p. 108 f.) notes. This takes into account the curating as a collective practice (cf. Marchart 2012). With the focus on the activity of curating, the emphasis is now on mediating, linked to the exhibition as the central medium of mediation (von Bismarck 2004, p. 108). Curating thus encompasses “techniques, procedures and skills […] that are directed at the public becoming of art and culture” (von Bismarck 2012, p. 47). In addition to administrative and organizational services, this includes above all creative and interpretive skills of selecting, assembling, ordering and presenting (von Bismarck 2004, p. 109, 2012, p. 47). In doing so, not only objects are assembled, but also subjects, places and information as well as their relations to each other are determined (von Bismarck 2012, p. 47). Curatorial practice in today’s understanding means, as Marchart pointedly puts it, an “activation of a network of institutions, persons and objects in the form of the project exhibition” (Marchart 2012, p. 31). Timon Beyes (2018, p. 174) also characterizes, referring to Reckwitz, that the practice of curating seems more interesting than individual figures and notes in this regard:

3.2  Atmosphere as a Connection between Subject and Space

73

“What began as organizing exhibitions behind the scenes of the art business and developed into a form of storytelling, of guiding the viewer through an arrangement of objects in a specific narrative order, has meanwhile become a bundle of competencies and processes such as enabling, making public, teaching, analyzing, criticizing, theorizing, editing and staging. Leaving behind professional and disciplinary containers, curating unites the roles of artist, classical curator, museum educator, publicist, interdisciplinary researcher, critic and theorist.” (Beyes 2018, p. 174, emphasis in original)

Beyes (2018, p. 175) goes one step further than Reckwitz when he speaks of a “double blurring of curating”: According to him, curating no longer refers only to the field of art and the fluid boundaries between the figures of the artists and the curators, but also to the non-art and, related to that, a wide field of cultural and social production.16 This is also indicated by the self-evident use of the term curating in the coworking discourse and in the field itself, when tasks of coworking hosts are characterized or when the “art of hosting” is spoken of. Thus, Merkel (2015, p. 131) also transfers the activities of curating from the art and museum sector to the activities of coworking hosts: “[T]he social and material activities of coworking hosts can be understood as curatorial practices, as the intentional creation of interconnections between people, ideas, objects and places within a new context and narrative. The host’s activities of curatorial practice can be summarised as assembling and arranging (people, spaces, objects), creating and signifying new meanings (collaboration, community, sustainability, openness, and accessibility [note AB: the coworking values]), reframing (work differently), caring (enabling community) and exhibiting (the work space and its community), all in order to create new work-related and social experiences in the city.” (ibid., emphases in original)

The activities of curating, which in the coworking context are mainly attributed to the roles of the coworking hosts and the community managers in particular, can thus not only be seen as a field expression, but from an analytical perspective (as in Merkel 2015). Curating in the CWS context is thus not only about organizational performance, but also about social competence and symbolizing skills

16 With

regard to boundaryless and subjectified workers, and thus also the coworkers, Beyes (2018, p. 176) also diagnoses that they curate their competence profile. Creativity and aesthetic practices are thus also increasingly important for the self-organization of the labor entrepreneurs: “That everyone develops curatorial competencies or at least has to curate his/her own profile seems […] to have become the elementary requirement” (ibid., p. 177).

74

3  Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community

(through meaning-making processes of selecting, assembling and ordering) (cf. von Bismarck 2004, p. 109) and, related to that, the management of atmospheres.

3.2.3 Creating One’s Own Atmospheres “[O]ne thing that humans (almost) universally seek to do (or hope for even if they never achieve it), is to make the environment around us feel ‘right’ enough for us to be able to comfortably go about our everyday business.” (Pink et al. 2015, p. 355)

Although atmospheres are pre-arranged in the context of aesthetic work, it is important to emphasize that they emerge in the interplay of all their elements and can thus be influenced by the individual elements. This means, in relation to CWSs: Although the operators determine the perceived atmospheres in advance by means of the material strategies of curating, through the design and pre-arrangement of the arrangements of the CWS, the co-present coworkers and their spatial action also shape the (interpersonal) atmosphere. As it is also emphasized in the coworking discourse, there is always openness for accidental moments and unplanned encounters—this is inherent in the intended atmosphere (cf. Michels and Steyaert 2017, p. 97). In addition, there is a “perception span” between intended and perceived atmospheres (Rauh 2018, p. 137), insofar as not every person experiences spaces in the same way. Depending on their own relational position, personal well-being, biographical experiences and orientations (Pink et al. 2015, p. 353) and thus associated habitus, the perceiving subjects synthesize different atmospheres, which are connected with different feelings: “[Atmospheres are] felt differently by different people” (Pink et al. 2015, p. 353). According to Löw, in the interplay of staged spacings and habitus of the synthesizing subject, atmospheres are experienced as secondary objectifications and can trigger feelings of belonging, well-being or security, but also rejection, alienation or fear (Löw 2015, p. 216). This goes along with the development of subjective preferences (ibid.), as it is also expressed in Bourdieu’s famous quote: “It is the habitus that makes the habitat, in the sense that it forms certain preferences for a more or less adequate use of the habitat” (Bourdieu 1991, p. 32). The perceiving and placing subjects thus seek out spaces and atmospheres that suit them, that evoke positive feelings such as well-being or belonging, and avoid those that are associated with negative feelings. Besides engaging with or escaping from atmospheres, the subjects also modify spatial arrangements so that they create their own suitable atmospheres that feel “right” and bring about a subjective well-being (cf. Pink et al. 2015, 2018):

3.2  Atmosphere as a Connection between Subject and Space

75

In this regard, Sarah Pink, Kerstin Leder Mackley and Roxana Moroşanu (2015) state with regard to their research on atmospheres at home: “If there is always atmosphere and if we consider humans to be seeking to make that atmosphere feel ‘right’ in ways that are not explicit but that are ongoing, tacit and routine, then to investigate how a sense of wellbeing is generated in homes we need to ask how people actually generate such atmospheres” (p. 357). And Schmitz also notes with reference to living at a certain place that people can make their own emotional space at home, which harmonizes with their own bodily well-being (Schmitz 2014, p. 27 f.). Not only for private spaces, but also in the context of work spaces, atmospheres that evoke well-being and feel “right” play an important role, especially when it comes to mobile, subjectified workers who are affected by spatial worries (cf. Liegl 2014) and who have a high degree of freedom in terms of designing their own work space. In this work, not only the creation of atmospheres in the context of curating is considered, but also the creation of atmospheres by the CWS users themselves. The question arises, how the users appropriate CWS spaces, so that the experienced atmosphere feels right.

3.2.4 Implications for the Analytical Examination of Atmospheres “As soon as we begin to engage with empirical descriptions of the emergence of atmospheres, we’re treading on slippery ground. Do we approach atmospheres by investigating the spatial and material qualities of a room and how they are modulated (as spaces seem to have an inherent atmosphere), or do we focus on how these spaces are experienced by their inhabitants (as atmospheres seem to depend on their subjective perception)?” (Michels 2015, p. 255)

As the previous explanations have shown, atmosphere is considered as a connecting category between the perceiving subject, the bodily-sensing, perceiving human being, and the perceptual object, the spatial arrangements in their effect, and is constituted by both. It is an own potentiality of spaces, which is felt in the bodily presence. Atmosphere thus represents something third, which mediates as an “and” between both. It is thus not only a mediated, but also a mediating entity (Rauh 2018, p. 129). Corresponding to the two sides of atmosphere, two approaches for the exploration of atmospheres can be shown following Böhme (2013b, p. 132): First, atmospheres can be studied by asking “how one feels in environments of certain qualities, i.e. how one senses these qualities in one’s own state of mind”. Second, atmosphere can be viewed from the object side in relation to the instances

76

3  Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community

by which they are generated (ibid., p. 133). With regard to those dimensions that generate the character of atmospheres, Böhme refers to the ecstasies of the non-material space, such as the acoustic, the visual (forms, colors, shapes), and non-materials such as light, synaesthesia and movement suggestions, signs and symbols (cf. ibid., p. 133 ff.). The approach of Christoph Michels (2015) to the exploration of atmospheres also refers to both sides (cf. to the following explanations of this paragraph Michels 2015). Thus, Michels suggests to explore atmospheres through the processes of their composition. First, with regard to the side of the perceptual objects, the relational positioning and design of the material components in the process of aesthetic work17 should be examined more closely. With a focus on the side of the perceiving subjects, Michels secondly suggests to illuminate the sensory abilities applied in the synthesis and their shaping by certain modes of composition. Here, Michels (with reference to Löw) uses Bourdieu’s concept of habitus and emphasizes habituation as a process of developing the affective abilities of a human body. With regard to the institutionalized arrangements and thus stabilized external effects, thirdly, Michels argues, the examination of the (de-) stabilization of atmospheres and the patterns of (re-)production of atmospheres are of interest and in this respect also how interventions can lead to new patterns. In order to adequately capture the concept of atmosphere in this work, both sides of atmospheres are also considered following Böhme and Michels: Thus, the phenomenon is approached from the side of the perceptual objects in relation to the composition of (typical) spatial arrangements of CWSs and the associated (typical) generated atmospheres18. On the other hand, the phenomenon is elaborated from the perspective of the perceiving and shaping subjects and the subjective meaning of spaces and atmospheres and their constitution by the users is traced. In this respect, it is of interest how the CWS spaces are experienced by the users, what this means for certain user groups and how the users constitute their own spaces and atmospheres that generate well-being and feel “right” for them. In addition, tensions that go along with atmospheres, as well as in the case of (de-)stabilization, and the role of atmospheres in relation to dealing with tensions are of interest in the context of this work. In order to adequately capture this methodically, a multi-methodical research design based on ethnography is applied

17 Here,

Michels specifically refers to Böhme’s concept of aesthetic work. atmospheres arise situationally in the bodily presence, they are not always restored in the same way, but generated in a similar way.

18 Since

3.3  Two Perspectives on Space and Atmosphere

77

(cf. in detail Chap. 6). In the following explanations, the two sides of atmosphere and the associated perspectives on space and atmosphere are presented in more detail.

3.3 Two Perspectives on Space and Atmosphere To approach the phenomenon of atmosphere, this work takes both the perspective of the perceiving subjects and their subjective states, emotions or feelings, and the perspective of the arrangements in their construction and the associated affective qualities of space. In the context of the bodily sensing of atmospheres, different mood concepts are relevant, which each emphasize different aspects, as shown by the terms emotion and affect (cf. Flatley 2008). Emotion refers to the personal and subjective, which happens inside the subject, while affect refers to something impersonal and objective, relational and transformative (Anderson 2009, p. 80; Flatley 2008, p. 12): “One has emotions; one is affected by people or things” (Flatley 2008, p. 12, emphases in original). The term affect is thus more dynamic and interactive: “Affect is reminiscent of ‘to affect’ and ‘to be affected’ and thus of dynamic and interactive dimensions that the term ‘emotion’ lacks, as it rather implies the static notion of having an emotion ‘deep inside’” (Reckwitz 2012, p. 250). The different meanings of the terms emotion and affect show the subject-object split, which, however, as shown, is to be overcome with the concept of atmosphere (cf. Anderson 2009). These terms are therefore understood in this work as two sides of a coin: the phenomenon of atmosphere. Thus, the terms of state are not strictly separated from each other—because if the concept of atmosphere undermines the subject-object split, then the distinction of the different terms of state also becomes difficult. Accordingly, the terms state, mood, affect, emotion or feeling are used more or less synonymously in this work, although the different connotations of the terms are certainly taken into account. The following will now illuminate the two sides of atmosphere and the associated perspectives on space and atmosphere in more detail: This involves different theoretical concepts, which are presented in this chapter. While the first part deals with the perspective of the spatial arrangements as objects of perception and the effect of space on action (Sect. 3.3.1), the second part refers to the perspective of the perceiving subjects and thus to concepts that emphasize the effect of action on space more strongly (Sect. 3.3.2).

78

3  Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community

3.3.1 Object Perspective: The Spatial Arrangements and Their Effect From the object perspective, the spatial arrangements in their construction and thus, in addition to the space-constituting action, the elements (people as well as non-human space and its living beings, architecture, things and artifacts) and their relations to each other come into focus of the observation. First, the elements of the non-human or more precisely the inanimate space are discussed, followed by a look at the effects of the bodies or arrangements.

3.3.1.1 The Non-Human Space: Things, Artifacts and Architecture First, the importance of the social goods in relation to space and the associated definitions are discussed. When arrangements are considered without humans, this work speaks of non-human space (including animals and plants) or inanimate space (which comprises (interior) architecture, things and artifacts). The expression physical-material or material space, which is sometimes used for non-human or inanimate space (in analytical distinction from social or virtual space (cf. Edinger and Reimer 2015)), is not quite accurate in my opinion, since humans in their materiality as bodies are also elements of this material space. From the previous explanations on relational space, it became clear that space is always social, insofar as it is constituted in action. Thus, it is also an analytical distinction, when on the object side (besides the humans as part of the arrangements) the non-human space is spoken of. As already pointed out, Löw always attributes a material as well as a symbolic component to social goods. The spacing refers to social goods in their material property, but the synthesis is achieved (also) by deciphering their symbolism (Löw 2015, p. 153). For primarily material social goods in the sense of Löw’s concept of space, the terms things and artifacts are also used. Following Silke Steets (2015, p. 11), things are understood as all physically material inanimate elements of everyday reality, whereby artifacts represent artificial, that is, humanmade things.19 Although the terms are largely used synonymously in the following, the artificiality of artifacts is emphasized more strongly. 19 The distinction is made somewhat differently, for example, by Hillebrandt (2014, p. 76), who does not set artifacts as part of things, but in contrast to things. While things are “existing, unformed matter” (which also includes living beings such as trees in the wilderness) and indeterminate matter, the term artifact here refers to the “specifically shaped matter by practice” (ibid.), i.e. in Löw’s understanding the social goods. Furthermore, the term

3.3  Two Perspectives on Space and Atmosphere

79

Things have a radiance or effect on the subject: Thus, Böhme (2013c, p. 33) emphasizes the ecstasies of things as ways in which they emerge from themselves. Löw (2015, p. 195) also cites the outward effect of social goods and their arrangements. The effect of things and artifacts in particular refers to the use as well as the evocation of affects, which was already addressed in Böhme’s distinction between use value and staging value of goods. Very similarly, Reckwitz (2016, p. 175) describes artifacts as carriers of (positive or negative) affects (cf. this and the following explanations of the paragraph Reckwitz 2016, p. 175 f.). Reckwitz emphasizes two “affect structures” of things: On the one hand, a “tool paradigm” of artifacts, i.e. a primarily purposive use of things in a practical context for a specific purpose (although they can also be associated with affects). Similar to Böhme, Reckwitz also diagnoses that in the cultural-historical development, and especially in the (late) modernity, another affect structure gains importance (cf. explanations on the aesthetic economy, Sect. 3.2.2): In the “cult paradigm”, the things are primarily “affect generators” and have a high staging value in Böhme’s terminology: “In this constellation, the things are produced for the purpose that they affect the subjects, and in their use by the subjects, the things actually act as such affect generators (whether according to the intentions of the producers or not)” (Reckwitz 2016, p. 175, emphasis in the original). Thus, the focus is not on the practical handling of the things (and thus their use value), but on the being affected (and thus their staging value, cf. Sect. 3.2.2). Similar to Böhme’s diagnosis of society, artifacts as affect generators are of particular importance for Reckwitz in relation to spatial atmospheres, whose production has a key significance especially in the affect-oriented late modernity.

3.3.1.2 Reference to Psychology: Affordances The effect of things, living beings and their arrangements on the perceiving subject is also considered in environmental psychology. Thus, the theory of affordances by James J. Gibson (1982) deals with the invitation or offer character for a

objects is also used when it comes to elements of non-human space. In this work, the term (perception) object is attributed to the perceived arrangements in relation to atmospheres, which can also include humans.

80

3  Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community

specific action, which emanates from the environment, i.e. from surfaces, objects, other people and animals, to the (in Gibson’s case primarily visually perceiving) living being: “By the affordances of the environment I mean what it offers, what it provides or furnishes, be it for good or for evil” (Gibson 1982, p. 137, emphases in the original). Accordingly, affordance refers to the possibilities or limitations of action that things or non-human space radiate (Schulze 2009a, p. 80). Gibson (1982, p. 137) emphasizes that the term affordance, which he himself coined, is intended to express the complementarity of perceiving living being and perceived environment. This also attempts to overcome the subject-object split, whereby Gibson starts from the perceptual object. The properties of the perceiving subject are relevant insofar as an affordance only develops its relevance in relation to the perceiving subject and its “anatomical-physiological behavioral equipment” (Schulze 2009a, p. 80). Gibson illustrates the concept of affordance using the example of surfaces that are horizontal, flat, extended and rigid, and, depending on the body size of the subject, knee-high: They offer to sit on them (Gibson 1982, p. 138). Accordingly, such a surface, according to Gibson, should “look ‘sit-able’” (ibid., emphasis in the original). Affordances are thus recognized as such in visual perception. Gibson understands perception in this respect as an active process of exploring the environment and assigns a special importance to environmental information in perception (Schulze 2009a, p. 79 f.). Gibson’s theory emphasizes the visual perception of information. Other senses activated in the context of bodily sensing, the ecstasies of non-human space and the associated feelings play no role. Thus, for example, Gibson (1982, p. 138) states about the seat: “It can be a natural surface, for example a rock ledge, or an artificial one, for example a sofa. It can have the most diverse shapes, as long as its functional surface arrangement is that of a seat. The color and texture of the surface is irrelevant.” In this respect, Gibson’s approach is extended in the following. Applied to office environments, the effect of non-human space on the subjects is examined by Iris Vilnai-Yavetz, Anat Rafaeli and Caryn Schneider Yaacov (2005). In their study, they identify three dimensions of the effect of non-human space in office design on the subjects: first, instrumentality, as the effects of non-human space on the tasks and goals associated with it in the sense of Gibson’s original affordance concept (in relation to the ability to perform a task and the adaptability to individual needs); second, symbolism, i.e. the associations evoked by the space (in relation to status and identity); and third, aesthetics (here in the sense of a taste judgment in the understanding of classical judgment aesthetics). Referring to Gibson’s theory, there are also approaches that take into account the emotional affordance of the environment and thus the emotional processing

3.3  Two Perspectives on Space and Atmosphere

81

and response of the perceiving subject. From an environmental or architectural psychological perspective, it is assumed that the arrangements of the non-human space not only convey information for cognitive processing, but also information that triggers emotions (Schulze 2009a, p. 84). Emotional affordance refers to how emotional processes or behaviors of the perceiving subject are elicited (or suppressed), expressed (or inhibited), perceived and controlled (Cheng 2014, p. 44). Katharina Brichetti and Franz Mechsner (2019, p. 49) emphasize, with regard to Gibson’s example of the seat, a bodily experienced affordance that responds to the ecstasies of a chair: “Such an experienced ‘invitation’ by a chair, which invites to sit, is certainly an affectively tinged, bodily-sensory impression of the chair, perhaps a spatially felt relationship between my body, which wants to sit, and the chair, which invites to sit” (Brichetti and Mechsner 2019, p. 49). In this respect, Brichetti and Mechsner, like Böhme, refer to the bodily felt relationship between the perceptual object and subject. The subject perspective will be further elaborated in the following section.

3.3.2 Subject Perspective: The Exploration of Spaces by the Subjects If space is socially constructed, it does not exist without humans. From the previous explanations, it became clear that humans are involved in the constitution of spaces in two respects: first (from the object perspective) in their materiality and with their symbolic radiance as arranged human bodies (alongside non-human ones) and thus elements of the spatial arrangement and second (from the subject perspective) as acting subjects, who in their bodily presence perceive and interpret spaces sensually and shape them. Here, the philosophical distinction between body and body comes into play, as it is made by Helmuth Plessner (1940, p. 344) or Schmitz (2014, p. 16–18, 31 f., 2015, p. 15. f.), and also taken up by Böhme: “The body is, to put it briefly, our own nature, as it is given to us in self-experience. The body, on the other hand, is our own nature, as it is given to us by external experience—i.e. in the view of the anatomist, physiologist, physician” (Böhme 2013b, p. 14). With the adoption of the object perspective, the focus was on the analysis of space in its construction, whereas now the bodily present subjects as constructors of space come into focus of the observation (cf. Herrmann 2010, p. 16). If atmospheres are understood, following Böhme, as “bodily felt spaces of presence” (Böhme 2013b, p. 123), then the perceiving, bodily feeling and acting human being moves into the center of attention from the subject perspective. With regard to CWSs, the subjective exploration of the CWS spaces is

82

3  Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community

to be traced. Thus, the synthesis of CWS spaces and atmospheres as well as the spatial action of the subjects in relation to spacings are in focus of the observation. That these space-constituting processes are inseparably intertwined in reality was already emphasized in the presentation of the relational concept of space by Löw. In the following, two concepts related to this are introduced. Spatial experience and spatial appropriation refer to the processes of space constitution by the subjects from a different perspective, which are closely intertwined in reality.

3.3.2.1 Spatial Experience and Experienced Space First, the concept of spatial experience and related experienced space are discussed (cf. Herrmann 2010; Weichhart 2018). Experienced space is the subjectively perceived space of everyday life, which is charged with subjective meaning and significance (Weichhart 2018, p. 86). In view of Löw’s relational concept of space, the experienced space is the result of the operation of synthesis (cf. Edinger 2015, p. 73). Spatial experience thus refers to the synthesis of spatial arrangements and the associated effect on the subject (cf. Herrmann 2010). The concept of spatial experience emphasizes the human being as a bodily sensing and experiencing Patheur (cf. Hasse 2014, p. 64 f.).20 The space of bodily presence emanates from the body and is centered on the here I am (Böhme 2013b, p. 16, emphasis in the original). It has directions (left-right, up-down, front-back) and is accompanied by bodily experiences, such as narrowness or wideness, brightness or darkness, movement impulses or inhibitions, etc. (ibid.). In addition, spatial experience is oriented by (social) concepts, such as the idea of the absolute container space (cf. Herrmann 2010, p. 17). Spatial experience is individual and at the same time socially and culturally determined (Herrmann 2010, p. 17). Insofar as the habitus pre-structures the perception, group- or culture-specific value judgments also come into play, as well as clichés and image attributions (Weichhart 2018, p. 86). The concept of spatial experience emphasizes the synthesis processes in the exploration of spaces. When the subject perspective on CWS spaces is reconstructed in the context of this work with regard to spatial experience, this refers not only to the perception or bodily sensing of space, but also always to the interpretation of what is perceived and the associated effect, which the perception or

20 This

is based on the assumption that the human being is also always at the same time a rational acting agent (ibid.). Also bodily sensing itself is not purely passive, but always an active process with the understanding of space and atmosphere presented here (Rauh 2018, p. 133).

3.3  Two Perspectives on Space and Atmosphere

83

synthesis as a whole has on the subject, as Herrmann (2010, p. 16) emphasizes with reference to Löw. From the spatial experience, actions of spatial design within the framework of spacing follow (ibid.). In addition, spatial experience and the resulting experienced space also include memory and imagination processes as well as opinions and attributions that go beyond bodily presence: “The experienced space is created by the subjective perception of an individual at the time of experiencing, but also as a mental construct that outlasts the time of experiencing. The ‘experienced’ space is thus a specific and subjectively interpreted mental model that represents a structure of opinions and attributions” (Andersen 2010, p. 154). Spatial experience is thus not only fed by the momentary spatial experience, but also by past, socially shaped spatial experience (Herrmann 2010, p. 18). With the spatial experience, spatial constructions are connected, through which past spatial experience remains in one’s own memory, linked with one’s own symbolism and atmosphere (ibid., p. 19). These cognitive experiences are accompanied by feelings that can also be transferred to other spaces (ibid.). In such an understanding, the experienced space of the CWS users is methodically accessible in the context of the study as subjectively experienced CWS spaces. It can be asked how individuals or groups constitute their own spaces through their spatial experience (cf. ibid.).

3.3.2.2 Appropriating and Creating One’s Own Spaces When appropriating space, the focus is more on the spacing processes. Thus, the focus of this work is not only on the users as experiencing and primarily synthesizing, but also as creating subjects who explore spaces in their bodily presence. In this respect, the term appropriation emphasizes more the active perspective of the subjects as spatially acting actors (as a counterpart to the figure of the experiencing patheur (cf. Hasse 2014)). Löw does not use the term appropriation herself in her theoretical concept, but criticizes the term, which goes back to Karl Marx (with philosophical reference to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel) and is used by Alexei Nikolajewitsch Leontjew and the Critical Psychology in relation to space (cf. also Deinet 2010; Hüllemann et al. 2017), for its attachment to a notion of space as absolute container space: Such an understanding of appropriation “works with regard to space with the idea of space existing beyond human action, which can be actively appropriated. Space is thus neither thought of as processual nor as to be constituted, but presupposed, but then the self-activity is emphasized” (Löw 2015, p. 249). The term appropriation of space does not fit with an understanding of space as created in action, since there space is conceptualized as absolute and something prior to (appropriation) action (Hüllemann et al. 2017, p. 8). However, space is not imagi-

84

3  Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community

nable as “unprocessed” and detached from social schemes of perception, but always already appropriated space, as Markus Schroer (2009, p. 134) also states with reference to Bourdieu. On the other hand, the term appropriation is also appropriate from the perspective of the perceiving and creating subjects in relation to the (indeed experienced as absolute container space) experienced space. When it comes to reconstructing the subject perspective, the term appropriation should therefore be given due attention. Bourdieu (1991, p. 26) summarizes the appropriated physical space in this respect as reified, i.e. objectified social space. Löw also states with reference to institutionalized spaces that the institutionalized arrangements are experienced in spatial experience as objectifications (Löw 2015, p. 164). Space can thus be appropriated from the subject perspective as objectified objectivation (Hüllemann et al. 2017, p. 11). In addition, the term appropriation can be extended to the relational understanding of space following Ulrike Hüllemann, Christian Reutlinger and Ulrich Deinet (2017, p. 11 f.): If the objectifications are not understood as “appropriation containers” (ibid., p. 11), but following Löw as reproduced in the (appropriation) action, then appropriation is “acting developing and (re)producing spatial structures” (ibid., p. 12). Appropriation is understood in such a relational understanding of space as an interaction between subject and arrangement, whereby the production processes of space are of particular importance (ibid.). Spatial appropriation can thus be understood as the developing of spaces within the framework of the operation of synthesis as well as the creation of one’s own spaces as a placement practice within the framework of spacing (cf. Deinet 2010, p. 38). In appropriating as constitution of spaces, spaces and their structures are developed and understood by the subjects and at the same time (re-)produced and thus possibly also changed (cf. Hüllemann et al. 2017, p. 11). It becomes clear that the term spatial appropriation is very closely related to that of spatial experience and means something similar, but with emphasis on different processes (cf. Bernhardt 2022). While the term spatial experience places more emphasis on the synthesis and its effect, the understanding of appropriation described here includes the spacings more and emphasizes even more clearly the active engagement of the acting subject with the object space (cf. ibid.). Accordingly, the terms are used in this work to emphasize one or the other aspect. To capture the constitution of spaces from the subject perspective and thus both the experience and appropriation conceptually, the term developing of spaces is used in the context of this work.

3.3  Two Perspectives on Space and Atmosphere

85

3.3.2.3 Relation to Psychology: Personal Space, Privacy, Closeness and Distance, Territoriality In the understanding of relational spaces, spaces are constituted in action: They emerge through synthesis processes and are perceived in their external effect as atmospheres. In addition, spaces are created by placing one’s own body and social goods within the framework of spacing. In this chapter, it has been shown so far that the subjective appropriation of spaces can be conceptually grasped by the concepts of experiencing and appropriating spaces. If CWS spaces are to be reconstructed from the perspective of the users, then terms from environmental or, more specifically, architectural psychology become relevant: personal space, privacy, and related to that, proximity and distance behavior, as well as territoriality. Personal space is defined in architectural psychology as “the emotionally charged area surrounding the body, which forms an invisible boundary as long as no boundary violation occurs” (Flade 2008, p. 123) and is thus closely related to the bodily space in terms of concept. The personal space regulates the interpersonal spatial distances between persons, which vary depending on the type of relationship, situation, but also social and cultural norms (ibid., p. 123 f.). It is closely related to the need for privacy, i.e. to create boundaries by withdrawing and thus strengthening one’s own identity (Hellbrück and Kals 2012, p. 78). Privacy is about being able to control social relationships, for which spatial-architectural means are also used (Flade 2008, p. 132). Privacy refers not only to the visual, i.e. being protected from unwanted observation, but also to acoustic privacy and thus being able to talk undisturbed or to shield oneself from noise (ibid., p. 134 f.). The need for privacy is in tension with other needs, such as those for communication and exchange (Hellbrück and Kals 2012, p. 78 f.). Related to this is a play of distance and closeness (ibid., p. 79), which, as will become clear in the context of the present study, is also significant in everyday CWS life. This interplay is described by the equilibration hypothesis (cf. Argyle and Dean 1965), which states that “people try to establish a balance between their approach and avoidance behavior through verbal, nonverbal (facial expressions, gestures, etc.) and paraverbal communication (such as prosody and intonation)” (Hellbrück and Kals 2012, p. 79). The different concepts play a role in the context of the spatial constitution processes in the CWS: For example, in relation to the design and relational positioning of tables and seating: For example, there is a greater interpersonal distance

86

3  Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community

between workplaces consisting of a large desk and office chair than between the workplaces at a fully occupied café table with six simple chairs. Table partitions create visual protection. Undisturbed talking is taken into account, for example, by providing telephone booths or meeting rooms in the spatial concept. Shielding from noise is achieved by creating quiet work zones or also by retreat spaces such as the meeting room. When considering the positioning of workplaces, the distinction between sociopetal and sociofugal patterns is also relevant: While sociopetal, i.e. facing arrangements of places, promote communication, sociofugal arrangements hinder social interactions and conversations and thus promote withdrawal and privacy (Flade 2008, p. 125; Hellbrück and Kals 2012, p. 79). In addition, the need for privacy or communication and the personal space in relation to the self-placements of the coworkers are relevant. Flade (2008, p. 126) summarizes the own positioning in relation to the co-present others as a means of communication, if it is freely chosen: Thus, the co-present others are informed about the type of relationship that the placing subject desires. For example, in the CWS, does a person sit down at a table already occupied by another coworker with four seats or does he or she choose the free table next to it? Does he or she sit down at the occupied table directly next to the other person, opposite or diagonally offset? Does he or she position himself or herself at another table in the middle of the open space or at a wall place hidden behind a large plant? In addition to the interpersonal distance setting via the own positioning, as this work will show, the way in which proximity or distance to the co-present others are signaled also play a significant role for contact initiation or avoidance in the CWS (see result Sect. 8.1). Proximity and distance are also expressed in the concept of territoriality, where it is also about demarcating oneself (Hellbrück and Kals 2012, p. 80). Territoriality refers—from the subject perspective with reference to an absolute concept of space—to the claiming of availability over (container) spaces by a person or group against other persons or groups, which is a form of power exercise (Flade 2008, p. 127). A distinction can be made between primary, secondary and tertiary or public territories (see Table 3.1). The territories differ according to the duration of occupation, degree of personalization and readiness to defend. In the CWS context, the fixed workplace in the open space or the team office represent primary territories, which are occu-

3.3  Two Perspectives on Space and Atmosphere

87

Table 3.1   Territories and their occupation. Source Flade (2008, p. 128) based on Hellbrück and Fischer (1999, p. 337), slightly revised and supplemented with CWS examples21

Type of territory with examples from CWSs

Duration of occupation

Degree of personalization/ defense

Primary territory (e.g. fixed desks, team office in CWS)

Continued, perceived as property by occupant and others

Strong personalization, design of the territory according to own preferences, unauthorized intrusion by others is considered a serious violation

Secondary territory (e.g. flex Temporary, no ownership, desks) the occupant belongs to the circle of authorized persons

Limited personalization during the use of the territory, time-limited defense

Public (tertiary) territory (e.g. seat in public café belonging to CWS)

No personalization, low probability of defense

Short-term, no ownership, anyone can be an occupant

pied for a longer period of time. The personalization of fix desks is usually high, which makes them recognizable by others as such and usually acknowledged as occupied territories.22 Flexible CWS workplaces, on the other hand, can only be occupied temporarily as secondary territories (usually for a maximum of one day) and can also only be personalized and defended for the duration of the occupation, following the clean-desk policy. Tertiary or public territories, in turn, would be, transferred to the CWS context, for example, the seats of a public café that is attached to a CWS. These are generally accessible to all visitors and not only to the coworkers. The seats can be occupied for a short period of time (usually associated with the consumption of the café offer, sometimes longer than usual in a public café, where secondary territories can also arise) and are little personalized. This goes along with the fact that a seat in the café—unlike the flex desk in the open space—can hardly be defended in case of longer absence.

21 Revised

from Architektur: psychologisch betrachtet by A. Flade with kind permission of Hogrefe Verlag GmbH & Co. KG. 22 For example, I did not experience any unauthorized use of fix desks by other coworkers in the field.

88

3  Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community

3.4 Further Connections between Subject and Space After spaces and atmospheres were conceptually illuminated on the one hand with regard to the arrangements in their construction and on the other hand in relation to the perceiving subjects (placing themselves and social goods), this chapter serves to present two further conceptual approaches to space and spatial action, which this work refers to. Sociology of practices is about understanding social practices as a conceptual connection between subject and arrangements. The setting concept focuses on typical links between spatial arrangements and action.

3.4.1 Spatial Practices For Löw, action is the central concept in relation to the constitution of spaces. In this relational understanding of space, not only placing and positioning are forms of action, but also perceiving and experiencing. In this regard, Löw emphasizes that everyday action is highly repetitive, that the constitution of spaces in everyday life takes place with reference to practical consciousness and is routinized, i.e. in the habitual repetition of action (cf. Sect. 3.1.2). In doing so, Löw defines routines as regular social practices. Following Reckwitz, whose distinction in affect structures of things has already been introduced, social practices can be understood as “a typified, routinized and socially ‘understandable’ bundle of activities23” (Reckwitz 2003, p. 289). Social practices are behavioral routines that are anchored in human bodies and artifacts on the one hand and are thus always also material practices (Reckwitz 2016, p. 163). On the other hand, practices are carried by a collective implicit knowledge and are thus also always cultural practices (ibid.). In this regard, practices represent a social “supra-individual” level, although they are also anchored in the bodies of individuals and act through them (ibid.). In addition to bodies and artifacts, Herbert Kalthoff (2016, p. 237) following, further components of social practice are to be mentioned: sensory phenomena (such as atmospheres), (living) organisms, materials or light (as ecstasies of things). “For besides artifacts and bodies, other materials, substances, organisms,

23 As

typical for sociological practice theories, Reckwitz uses the term activities and does not speak of action, insofar as in this perspective action, even as routine, presupposes “an individual and active individual with intentional acts” (Kalthoff 2016, p. 233). In contrast, action and human actors have a prominent role in Giddens’ theory (Wilz 2020, p. 8).

3.4  Further Connections between Subject and Space

89

sensory phenomena, etc. are reference points and components of social practice” (ibid.). Within the framework of such a practice-theoretical perspective, the affectivity and materiality of the social are thus comprehensively taken into account, as far as the significance and use of artifacts, technologies, media and images are concerned (Schäfer 2016, p. 13 f.) (cf. Sect. 3.3). These are viewed alongside human actors as non-human actors who are involved in social practices. Through the social practices, a connection between perception subject and object is thus also established, by understanding them both as participants of social practices: “Practices are the doing, speaking, feeling and thinking that we necessarily share with others. That we have it in common with others is a prerequisite for us to understand the world, to move and act meaningfully in it. Practices exist already before the individual acts, and enable this action as well as structure and limit it. They are not only performed by us, they also exist around us and historically before us. They circulate independently of individual subjects and yet depend on them to be executed and performed.” (Schäfer 2016, p. 12)

People are not understood here as autonomously acting subjects, but as interchangeable actors, which is why the practice-theoretical perspective is not fundamental for this subject-oriented work. But although it is not a focus of this work, a focus on the social practices that determine the everyday life of CWS and the human and non-human actors involved in them is helpful in some places. Accordingly, the analytical view on practices is woven into this work when it comes to working out basic practices of maintaining distance or creating proximity for coworking (see Sect. 8.1) or the occupying of territories by flex-desk users (see Sect. 10.3). In particular, a look at the performance or presentation of the social in the sense of Erving Goffman (2005) is of special interest, insofar as this also captures the external effect of spatial action (Kalthoff 2016, p. 239).

3.4.2 Spatial Settings The following presents the setting theories: First, the behavior-setting approach, which takes a typical patterns of behavior from the object perspective of the arrangements, and second, its counterpart, the action-setting approach, which approaches the phenomenon from the perspective of the acting subjects. Both concepts connect mental, material and social phenomena (see Weichhart 2018) and are helpful to conceptually grasp typical interrelations between arrangements and acting subjects in the everyday life of CWS.

90

3  Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community

The behavior-setting approach emphasizes the object perspective, according to which spaces structure action. Thus, certain (institutionalized) spatial arrangements suggest a certain behavior and suppress another (Schroer 2016, p. 177). Schroer (2016) explains the effect of space on behavior as follows: “Space shapes our behavior and stamps it. Spaces help to decide in which situation we are. They structure in advance which situations we can get into, which expectations we can have, they structure interaction processes, make some probable, others improbable” (p. 176). Just as institutionalized spatial arrangements and their atmospheres resemble each other at different places, there is also a fit between the arrangements and the associated patterns of behavior. The behavior-setting approach of Roger G. Barker (1968) is helpful in this respect to conceptually grasp the effect of spatial arrangements on action in relation to the typical patterns of space use that are produced.24 The behavior-setting concept can be related to the understanding of institutionalized spaces used by Löw. A behavior setting is an environmental situation that produces certain recurring patterns of behavior (so-called standing patterns of behavior) with certain programs (Schäfers 2010, p. 42). An example is the meeting room of a CWS consisting of a large table, several chairs, a projector and a whiteboard, which becomes the space for a customer meeting, a phone call or an internal brainstorming session. A behavior setting consists of non-human space and participating humans as components (Flade 2008, p. 58). These represent in Barker’s terminology the milieu, i.e. the material and social context associated with the patterns of behavior (Schulze 2009b, p. 43). Dysfunctions of a setting can therefore not only have causes in the non-human space, but also social causes (Flade 2008, p. 59). The standing patterns of behavior are interindividual constant patterns of behavior (Schulze 2009b, p. 43), which allow only minor variations or irritations due to individual psychological factors (Schäfers 2010, p. 42, 2014, p. 36). This means that besides non-human components, the humans are also interchangeable (Flade 2008, p. 59; Schulze 2009b, p. 45). Programs control the events and include rules, procedures, role distributions, responsibilities and interaction structures (Weichhart 2018, p. 318). The fit of milieus and patterns of behavior also implies the exclusion of nonconforming elements (Schulze 2009b, p. 44). Thus, the meeting room in the above example is less designed for sleeping there, for example (although it is not excluded).

24 Although

I mainly take up the idea of behavior settings here and do not pursue the concrete complex procedure for capturing behavior settings as it was realized in the Behavior Setting Survey by Barker (1968) (see also Schulze 2009b).

3.4  Further Connections between Subject and Space

91

The behavior-setting approach is trapped in the dualism of space and action, insofar as it emphasizes the effect of the spatial order on action one-sidedly. The participating humans are, on the other hand, regarded as interchangeable. This is opposed by the fact that, as already emphasized, spaces are not synthesized equally by all humans, which can also lead to individual differences in terms of space use and action that is contrary to the behavior setting. The perspective of the acting subjects is taken into account by Peter Weichhart (2003, 2018) with his action-theoretical action-setting approach: According to this, the acting subjects instrumentalize the spatial arrangements (with reference to the non-human space and interaction partners) in order to realize certain intentions (Weichhart 2018, p. 318): “Subjects seek […] certain contextual conditions with the explicit intention of performing certain actions there, thereby achieving specific goals. They find there exactly those physical-material conditions and exactly those social interaction partners that are required for the respective action performance, support, facilitate or optimize it” (Weichhart 2003, p. 33).

(Institutionalized) arrangements of the non-human space are in this understanding “culture-specific standardized configurations of material conditions for the simple and uncomplicated facilitation of specific actions” (ibid., p. 319) and are referred to as milieu in analogy to Barker. In contrast to Barker’s concept, Weichhart (2018) emphasizes: “It is not the context conditions that determine human action, rather they were created for the purpose of enabling, supporting or optimizing standardized action processes. The central point is the postulated reversal of causal effect: The functionality and the mode of action of the milieu is the result of colonization efforts, by means of which the relevant areas and elements of the material world are adapted to the requirements of the sense structures of the social world. In order to also express terminologically that the effective causal relationships do not originate from the milieu elements, but from the actors and their intentionalities, the term “action setting” is introduced as a designation for the overall context.” (ibid., p. 319 f., emphases in the original)

Action settings are thus understood as “hybrid entities” (ibid., p. 320) consisting of actors, milieu and program, which exist in the current action process (ibid.). The programs mediate according to Weichhart (2018, p. 320) social role models, standardized action routines and lifestyles, whereby the intentionalities of the individual subjects are linked with each other. In this reading, the space “meeting room of the CWS” is characterized, for example, by the program “customer

92

3  Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community

­ eeting”, the actors coworkers and external customers, and a milieu that is conm figured in such a way that it supports certain action processes: The table around which the participants sit optimizes the joint conversation, the projector facilitates the presentation, the whiteboard offers the possibility to record thoughts. The actors involved are aware of the action sequences of a customer meeting and behave accordingly. Although a coworker could also use the meeting room to sleep there, the conditions of the described milieu are unfavorable (insofar as there is no lying surface in the presented case and she could only sleep in comparatively uncomfortable positions (sitting with her head on the table, lying on the hard floor) (cf. Weichhart 2003, p. 33, footnote 16).25 For this work, the setting concept is taken up with regard to the duality of space both in the understanding of the behavior settings and the action settings, in order to characterize typical matches between space and action for the open spaces in more detail and also to identify possible deviations. In this respect, two typical work settings are elaborated in the empirical part of this work, which are the result of the duality of space and action in CWSs (see Sect. 7.3). After the connection between subject and space and the special importance of atmosphere have been illuminated, another central term of this work is in the focus of consideration: In the following, the concept of community or communitization is conceptualized in more detail.

3.5 Community as Communitization26 In the course of the flexibilization of work, the importance of community in relation to office workspaces has increased and finds a special expression in the phenomenon of CWSs. The present work therefore takes CWSs not only as spaces of work, but also as spaces of communitization into the focus of consideration. That this core function of coworking is particularly emphasized in the public and

25 In

contrast, there are also relaxation zones with corresponding lying possibilities in some CWSs. 26 Parts of this chapter have been published in Bernhardt (2021). The contribution presents the views on the social formations in the CWS that are worked out in Chap. 12. Revised with kind permission of Springer Nature Customer Service Centre GmbH: Springer, Coworking as Revolution of the World of Work. From Corporate Coworking to Workation, edited by S. Werther, ©Springer 2021.

3.5  Community as Communitization

93

scientific discourse was already shown in Sect. 2.2.2. Nevertheless, the concept of community is abstract and is defined differently. For this reason, the following section first outlines and defines the concept of community or communitization in contrast to society or societization (Sect. 3.5.1). It becomes apparent that a central characteristic of community is a feeling of belonging. Special attention is also paid to the concept of post-traditional communitization, as this concept seems helpful for the characterization of the social formations of CWSs (Sect. 3.5.2).

3.5.1 Communitization and Societization “Words convey meanings—and sometimes also ‘moods’. The word ‘community’, for example, evokes positive feelings. Whatever one may understand by ‘community’: It is undoubtedly good to ‘belong to a community’, to ‘live in a community’.” (Bauman 2009, p. 7)

As Zygmunt Bauman makes clear in the opening quote, community is a positively connoted term that triggers corresponding moods and feelings—albeit it means different things to different people. A feeling, namely that of belonging and of the “we”, seems to be central for communities. In this respect, it is first necessary to approach this core of the concept of community.27 When looking at the history of the sociological term of community, its distinction from that of society is characteristic. This distinction goes back to Ferdinand Tönnies (1963): “As ‘community’, Tönnies designates all lasting, natural, genuine, emotional, traditional, authentic, warm, self-referential, organic and lively connections of people. […] ‘Society’, on the other hand, appears primarily as a negative foil: it designates a temporary, made, apparent, artificial, rational, purposeful, contractual, abstract, mechanical and cold association.” (Gertenbach et al. 2010, p. 40 f.)

Tönnies (1963, p. 14 ff.) distinguishes communities of blood (kinship), of place (neighbourhood) and of spirit (friendship). While he sees family as the prototype

27 At this point, selected definitions of community are presented. For an overview of different community concepts, see Gertenbach et al. (2010).

94

3  Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community

of community, societal exchange relations of anonymous market participants are the prototype of society (Gertenbach et al. 2010, p. 41).28 In Max Weber (2013, pp. 194 ff.), community becomes communitization, which emphasizes the processuality of community formation and maintenance as well as communitizing social structure (Gertenbach et al. 2010, p. 48; Prisching 2008, p. 42): Thus, not the commonality of characteristics characterizes communitization, but by persons orienting their actions to each other and thereby documenting a feeling of belonging (Weber 2013, p. 197). Important elements of meaning of Tönnies’ conceptual distinction between community and society remain with Weber, whereby the concept of community is freed from its normative implications as an ideal type (Gertenbach et al. 2010, p. 48 f.). Thus, Weber (2013) defines communitization and societization as follows: “‘Communitization’ shall mean a social relationship when and to the extent that the orientation of social action—in the individual case or on average or in the pure type—is based on subjectively felt (affective or traditional) belonging of the participants. “‘Societization’ shall mean a social relationship when and to the extent that the orientation of social action is based on rational (value- or purposive-rational) motivated interest balance or on similarly motivated interest connection.” (ibid., p. 194 f., emphases in the original)

As examples of communitization, Weber (2013, p. 195) mentions, among others, family, erotic relationships, “national” communities or “a comradely cohesive troop”. As “purest types of societization” he cites, among others, free exchange on the market, the purposive association and the value-rational motivated conviction association (ibid.). However, Weber (2013) emphasizes that the terms are not an either-or: “The great majority of social relationships, however, have partly the character of communitization, partly that of societization. Every social relationship that is purposive-rational and soberly created and fulfilled (customer, for example) can cre-

28 As

can be seen from the comparison of Gertenbach et al. (sharpened to “organism vs. construction” (Opielka 2006, p. 28) or genuine vs. artificial (Gertenbach et al. 2010, p. 42)), this is not value-free, but the term society is negatively connoted for Tönnies. In contrast, Helmuth Plessner (2002), against the background of the developments at the beginning of the twentieth century, emphasises that a totalitarian thinking of community is dangerous and that both, communal closeness and societal distance, are necessary for the human being (Gertenbach et al. 2010, p. 44).

3.5  Community as Communitization

95

ate emotional values that go beyond the arbitrary purpose. […] Conversely, a social relationship whose normal meaning is communitization can be oriented by all or some of the participants wholly or partially purposive-rational.” (ibid., p. 195 f., emphases in the original)

The distinction of social formations into communitization and societization is therefore an analytical one. In the reality of organizations such as CWSs, societal and communal relationships coexist in different mixtures, although organizations are typically associated with societal relationships due to their purpose and goal orientation (Dierschke 2006, p. 83). Thus, the social connections in CWSs are, due to the organizational framework, formally seen as purposive-rational societal ones (especially with regard to the customer service provider relationship between operators and users): Social formations are institutionally organized and based on a business relationship as an expression of societization, which is reflected in a formal membership through a contract. In view of their discursive and everyday practical significance, however, communitization and thus, with Weber, the subjectively felt, affective belonging also plays an important role in relation to the social connections in CWSs (cf. Garrett et al. 2017). How this is produced and experienced in everyday CWS life through atmospheres is explored in the context of this work. So far, we have discussed what community or communitization is in contrast to society or societization, and highlighted the subjective felt belonging as a special feature. A newer definition of community, which also takes into account the subjective felt belonging, is the general understanding of community by Ronald Hitzler, Anne Honer and Michaela Pfadenhauer (2008, p. 10). According to them, communities are characterized by five basic criteria: “We consider as constitutive for communities of any kind a) the demarcation from a ‘non-we’ of whatever kind, b) a feeling of belonging together that has arisen in whatever way, c) an interest or concern of whatever kind that is shared by the members of the community, d) a value setting of whatever kind that is recognized by the members of the community, and finally e) some, of whatever kind, interaction (time) spaces that are accessible to the members.” (Hitzler et al. 2008, p. 10)

From the subject perspective, communitization can be understood accordingly as the development of a “‘feeling’ we-consciousness” (or a subjective felt belonging, community feeling or sense of belonging29) and thus encompasses the constitu29 The

terms are used largely synonymously in this work and summarized by the term of the feeling of belonging together.

96

3  Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community

tion of the relation to other subjects in “emotion-laden” demarcation from other “third parties” (Hitzler and Eisewicht 2016, p. 23). In this context, with reference to Christian Julmi (2015, p. 156), this subjective felt belonging is closely linked to the experience of a communal atmosphere that creates and binds identity and is consolidated by common rituals. The term feeling of belonging together is taken up in the context of this work to capture both the subjective experience of belonging and the intersubjectively effective communal atmosphere (cf. Hitzler and Eisewicht 2016, p. 33). CWSs are considered as spaces of communitization, following Weber, to focus on the process of becoming a community. Thus, the question is pursued how communal atmospheres and the associated feeling of belonging together are created in the everyday life of CWSs and to what extent the users—individually different—experience belonging in the CWS. More precisely, the initial thesis is that social formations in CWSs are posttraditional communitizations.

3.5.2 Posttraditional Communitizations “If the postmodern man wants to temporarily suspend his individuality, to get rid of the agony of permanent self-location and self-invention, then he can—risk-free and temporarily—become part of a larger whole. That sounds excellent.” (Prisching 2008, p. 36)

Different authors record a change of community in late modernity, characterized by individualization and value change, from traditional to post-traditional communities (for an overview: Gertenbach et al. 2010, p. 61 ff.; cf. Hitzler et al. 2008; Honneth 1993; Maffesoli 1996). Following the understanding of Hitzler et al. (2008, p. 9), the central characteristic of post-traditional communities is that their bonding force does not—as in traditional communities—depend on similar social positions, but on similar lifestyles and goals and common interests, shared consumption practices and similar aesthetic forms of expression (Gertenbach et al. 2010, p. 62; Hitzler et al. 2008, p. 9): “Membership in a post-traditional community consists […] essentially in the adoption and performance of or the confession to signs, symbols and rituals that are symptomatic for this (part-time) culture. This means that one does not or at least less decide on membership based on solidarity-creating common value orientations, but rather aesthetically and in principle temporarily.” (Hitzler et al. 2008, p. 13, emphasis in original)

3.5  Community as Communitization

97

Post-traditional communities are characterized in this phenomenological understanding by the fact that “individuals contingently decide to voluntarily and temporarily regard themselves as belonging together with others more or less intensely, with whom they have or assume a common interest focus” (Hitzler et al. 2008, p. 9 f.). Post-traditional communities are thus (like the communal atmospheres) individually reproduced (cf. Hitzler et al. 2008, p. 11). Membership in a post-traditional community is not based on obligation or coercion, but rather on seduction and affective belonging (Hitzler et al. 2008, p. 17 f.): “Unlike ‘real’ communities, post-traditional communities exist as long as the members believe in their existence and participate in it. Membership is based on attractiveness, not on compulsion. It is decided, it is not self-evident. The community is based on the will of the members, and it can be denied or revoked at any time.” (Prisching 2008, p. 36)

In addition, post-traditional communities differ from traditional communities in terms of the thematic focus of the togetherness, the part-time character and the selectivity of the community (Gertenbach et al. 2010, p. 62). Besides a balance of interests or a connection of interests within a societization, membership in the CWS, as the assumption is, also expresses an affective belonging within post-traditional communitization. (Laptop) workers who visit CWSs have a shared interest in using them in spatial-temporal co-presence with other (laptop) workers. The CWS membership is in principle non-binding and temporary and often (although not always30) voluntary and self-chosen. In addition, the users often (although not always) individually decide on the intensity and duration of their affiliation to the CWS. The decision for membership in a specific CWS as a workplace is based not only on a recognition of values (cf. Garrett et al. 2017), but also on attractiveness and seduction by appealing communal atmospheres, as the starting point of this work. What the communal atmospheres look like, how they are produced and experienced in everyday CWS life, is examined in the context of this work. Although CWSs are curated communitizations, it is not only the operators who create community and the associated communal atmospheres. Rather, the individual members contribute to the constitution and maintenance of the communitization and (re-)produce their own belonging. With such an understand-

30 With

an increasing share of companies and their employees in CWSs, CWSs as workplaces can also be increasingly predetermined by the employers.

98

3  Theoretical Reference Concepts: Space, Atmosphere and Community

ing of communitization, the opposition of community and society is overcome, insofar as communitizations and their conditions emerge “within the execution routines of modern sociability or from their execution routines” (Hitzler et al. 2008, p. 18) (Gertenbach et al. 2010, p. 61). In addition, the lifeworld-analytical ethnographic approach to posttraditional communities by Hitzler et al. (2008) is noteworthy, as the authors are not concerned with “large collectives” (Gertenbach et al. 2010, p. 61), but with small social lifeworlds (see Chap. 6). After the third central concept of this work, community, has been illuminated and thus the presentation of the theoretical reference concepts has been completed, the following chapter serves to apply the theoretical concepts to office workspaces and CWSs, whereby the state of research on the object of investigation is worked up and critically examined.

4

Connection to the Object of Investigation and State of Research

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).

4.1 Relational Spaces in the Context of Modern Office Work Office workspaces and CWS workspaces in particular are understood in this work as institutionalized spatial arrangements that are located at concrete, experiential places and thus represent “identifiable ethnographic objects” (R. Schmidt 2012, p. 131). Insofar as the relational spatial arrangements are socially constituted in the action by the working subjects, several spaces and atmospheres can emerge at one place in such a relational understanding of space (cf. Petendra 2015). Office workspaces in general have a specific function: The arrangements frame spatial-materially and symbolically activities that are performed and executed as mental work (R. Schmidt 2012, p. 131). With reference to the duality

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 A. Bernhardt, Coworking Atmospheres, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41193-0_4

99

100

4  Connection to the Object of Investigation and State of Research

of office space and the interlocking of office habitat and office habitus, Robert Schmidt (2012, p. 132) states with a praxeological view: “The social figure of the office worker is […] closely bound to its material environment, office habitat and office habitus are interlocked. The habitus of the office worker forms and unfolds in interaction with office spaces and office artifacts, which are involved in the practices of office work and invite and deter the office worker physically and symbolically to certain attitudes, approaches, ways of thinking and judging.”

The office architecture is constituted in the context of processes of planning and building and arranged in the context of the aesthetic work of (interior) architects and office planners in such a way that certain settings and atmospheres are prepared. The architectural space has a representational function and affects the everyday practices of the office workers (Petendra 2015, p. 54): It wants to “motivate, stimulate, influence, invite and impress” employees (as well as customers) (R. Schmidt 2012, p. 132). The architecture, the interior design and the artifacts of the office can, according to Schmidt (2012, p. 133), be carriers of threats and promises for themselves and in their interaction. For example, the postmodern design of aestheticized office workspaces is mainly about promises of awakening positive feelings and creative processes (cf. Prinz 2012 and Sect. 2.1.3). Modular, movable arrangements, on the other hand, promise a flexible, situation-adapted use. In the non-territorial office and the associated desk sharing, Schmidt (2012, p. 142) also sees a threat anchored in the interior, namely that of being dismissed. At the same time, the spatial arrangements in the relational understanding of work space are (re-)produced and thus made visible by the spatial action and the everyday practices associated with it (Petendra 2015, p. 54). In this respect, the work subjects can also use office architecture and artefacts differently from what was intended by the companies or interior designers (cf. Warren 2005). An aestheticized office designdoes not necessarily generate positive emotional states for the work as intended, but on the contrary, as “terror of feel good” (Prinz 2012, p. 265), can also cause displeasure and associated withdrawal and counter strategies (ibid.). In this context, Samantha Warren (2005)1 concludes in her ethnographic case study on office work space aesthetics and its reception by the employees that the aesthetic design of office work spaces can have short-term

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).

4.1  Relational Spaces in the Context of Modern Office Work

101

effects in terms of attracting and retaining employees, but no long-term ones: “[W]orkplace aestheticization cannot lead to any long term ‘authentic’ aesthetic engagement with work” (ibid., p. 3). And also in the flexible office, there are opposing practices of forming territories, as the qualitative empirical study by Brigitte Petendra (2015) shows. Petendra’s study on the flexible office is presented in more detail below, as it provides an important point of comparison for the present work to understand what is special about CWS work spaces (cf. especially result Chap. 10). Petendra examined two flexible offices and two offices that represent less flexible office types in terms of construction and organizational form (cf. Sect. 2.1.3) in the context of case studies. Like the present work, she pursued a relational conception of office work spaces. She understands the flexible office as a symbolic-material arrangement of flexible work and thus as an expression and condition of flexibilization (Petendra 2015, p. 54). In her study, she is interested in the constitution of flexible (compared to conventional) office work spaces in the context of everyday practices as well as in the perceptions and interpretations of the workers: In other words, Petendra asks “about the how of the production of work spaces and their effect on the work action under the conditions of flexibilization” (Petendra 2015, p. 104, emphasis in original). As a result, she points out that the workers of the flexible office, unlike those of the classic office, synthesize their work spaces body-centered, close to the body and heterogeneously (cf. ibid., Chap. 6). Although Petendra includes the phenomenon of atmosphere, she limits her observation to the phenomena of bodily felt density and emptiness. With regard to the perception of density, she points out that it is perceived differently by the workers as conducive or stressful. Petendra also takes into account the spacing processes within the context of settling in (cf. ibid., Sect. 7.1). She shows that flexible office space allocation patterns emerge in relation to preferred places: “The space allocation pattern manifests itself in an informal occupancy order that follows the seniority principle First come, first served and shapes the relationship between the ld-timers and the ewcomers” (Petendra 2015, p. 237, emphases in the original). While old-timers often claim a permanent right to a workplace, newcomers identify themselves as flexible, rule-compliant employees.2 Thus, both traditional and flexible office structures are reproduced in the placement practices.

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.

102

4  Connection to the Object of Investigation and State of Research

Especially in the case of density, different tactics and strategies of settling in are pursued in the flexible office (cf. ibid., Sect. 7.1.6). In this regard, one practice of old-timers is that of etting up, i.e. occupying a place as a territory for permanence, by placing personal items, visual signs and one’s own body accordingly, which serves to strategically defend the occupied workplace. To defend possession territory and in case of density, coming early is another practice. The flexible ones also have various tactics in case of density, which Petendra calls improvising, insisting and avoiding. Petendra concludes that in the flexible office, placement practices are negotiated more in everyday life than in the conventional office. Petendra’s study, which investigates the subjectification of work in relation to its spatial dimension (cf. Sect. 2.1.4), shows that the spatial organization of work in the flexible office becomes spatial self-organization (cf. ibid., Sect. 7.2). With regard to the significance of the flexible office, Petendra works out that it is mainly seen by the workers as a lace of exchange, with which collective-communicative activities are associated (cf. for this and the following statements of the paragraph on Petendra (2015) Bernhardt 2022). Complex individual activities, on the other hand, are outsourced by those employees who are not permanently present, insofar as the flexible office is also experienced as hindering effectiveness. For these activities, the home office as an individual-privatized workplace plays an important role, where concentration work and creative activities can be performed and work documents can be stored. The results of Petendra’s study make it clear that the flexible office has a communal character and is thus meaningful (cf. below Sect. 4.3).3 Petendra concludes that the flexibilization of work does not entail a loss of meaning of the office as a workplace, but rather a change of meaning. The emergence of CWSs is thus an expression of the fact that the function of office workspaces as spaces of communitization has gained in importance in the course of flexibilization. CWSs are organized in relation to the non-human space as flexible office workspaces, which often correspond to the open-space office and provide different zones (cf. Sect. 2.1.3). With regard to the setting concept, it can be stated that different zones as milieus, which are associated with different programs, each co-constitute specific work settings that promote certain behav-

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)

4.1  Relational Spaces in the Context of Modern Office Work

103

iors and not others. At the same time, the coworkers create their own spaces at these places in everyday action. In contrast to flexible offices, CWSs represent workspaces whose users do not belong to a company that pursues overarching corporate goals with the design of the office workspaces. While employees of a company do not choose to work in open-space workspaces themselves, coworkers much more often voluntarily seek out CWSs. Thus, in the context of this work, it is assumed that there are similarities between flexible offices and CWSs, but that CWSs also differ from flexible offices in terms of the actors and their actions as well as the resulting spaces and atmospheres. In contrast to Petendra, the present work focuses on the atmospheres of CWSs and their significance in everyday CWS life or in the everyday life of the coworkers.

4.2 The Spaces and Atmospheres of Coworking Spaces This work considers the spaces of coworking and the working subjects in relation to how they appropriate these spaces. It focuses on the atmospheres of CWSs and their significance in everyday CWS life, which have only recently been addressed in coworking research. The following explanations refer to existing research works that have examined the object of study of CWSs and related concepts with regard to their spaces—also in relation to the core functions of CWSs, not only to be workspaces, but also community spaces: first, with reference to the relational space and its appropriation by the users, second, with emphasis on atmospheres and their generation, and third, with regard to the curators of CWSs. These—all qualitative empirical, mostly ethnographic— works are briefly presented below and classified in relation to their relevance for the present research work.

4.2.1 The Relational Spaces of Coworking Spaces First, four studies are presented that examine the spaces in their construction or the emergence of spaces in action in more detail. (1) Désirée Bender (2013) has dealt with various work spaces and locations of creative and knowledge workers and their constitution, such as the café, the train, at home and the coworking space, in the context of her study on mobile workplaces (cf. Bender 2013 for the following explanations of the paragraph). The author draws on the relational concept of space by Löw, as does this work, and thus takes into account

104

4  Connection to the Object of Investigation and State of Research

the duality of space. In her analysis, Bender focuses on the acting subjects and examines the work space constitutions and work practices of digital and creative freelancers. With reference to Reckwitz (2014), she works out how the creativity dispositif (and thus “the social regime of the aesthetically new” (Reckwitz 2014, Chap. 1)) comes into play in this respect. Bender’s work is characterized by fine-grained analyses, which are also valuable for the present study. She examines, among other things, in detail the work space constitutions of a café worker and the human and non-human actors involved. Here, laptop and headphones also come into focus as significant artifacts, which also represent central artifacts of work for the coworkers in the context of this work (cf. Sect. 10.2.2). Likewise, Bender works out “doing being busy”-practices, with which laptop workers indicate to other people that they are working and thus make themselves unavailable (cf. ibid., p. 113 f.). These play, as this work will still work out, an important role in the CWS context, when it comes to creating distance in everyday CWS life (cf. Sect. 8.1). CWSs are considered by Bender as a significant form of institutionalization of the desire for authentic, auratically charged, creativity-enhancing, aestheticized places or spaces, generated by the creativity dispositif (ibid., p. 12). Her work is also relevant for the present study, insofar as she points out that affects play an important role in the work space constitution of creative workers. Although Bender (2013) provides interesting insights into the subject’s perspective and the significance of affects in the work space constitution, it should be noted that her analyses are only exemplary and that she does not focus on CWSs as work spaces. (2) François-Xavier de Vaujany and Jeremy Aroles (2019) draw on Maurice Merleau-Ponty (among others 1974, 1986) to examine the production of silence in a maker space in more detail within the framework of an ethnographic study (cf. de Vaujany and Aroles 2019 for the following explanations of the section). According to them, silence does not simply exist and mean the absence of noise, but it requires various efforts on the part of the subjects to maintain silence. Examples from the maker space everyday life, which the authors work out, are body postures that prevent eye contact, when, for example, someone enters the space, wearing headphones or retreating to secluded spaces: “[T]he presence and maintenance of silence required a lot of activities and mediations. Some of these mediations include the use of headphones, the choice and continuous adaptation of a body posture (to avoid staring into the eyes of other people and to avoid adopting a body position that would suggest that one is open to social interactions), movements (such as the practice of walking that could also be a way

4.2  The Spaces and Atmospheres of Coworking Spaces

105

to create a bubble to disconnect from the outside world), retreats in liminal spaces (such as cabin booth, stairs, street, internal courts), the paradoxical use of white noises or music (through headphone) or the choice of a location close to a machine producing a continuous noise. Producing and maintaining silence thus required a learning process that also applied to us (used to work in closed offices and more synchronic environments).” (de Vaujany and Aroles 2019, p. 219)

As this shows, creating silence can paradoxically sometimes also mean drowning out noises with noises or people getting used to noises and ignoring them. In addition, very similar practices are shown here as Bender (2013) describes with “doing being busy” when it comes to avoiding contact with others. Silence is characteristic of working in collaborative spaces, insofar as it enables focus, reflection, learning and thus also the emergence of creative and entrepreneurial activities and rhythmizes the workday. In contrast, de Vaujany and Aroles note that the silence in the maker space everyday life is also repeatedly broken: for example, when someone enters the space, a phone call is answered, at communal events, during breaks, giving advice or sharing tools and materials. The authors also describe non-, para- or verbal signals to get in contact with co-present others, such as a relaxed body posture, a look that is not directed at the laptop screen or the document, or a “hello”, which often initiate short conversations with table neighbors. The authors note that breaking the silence can contribute to feeling part of the community: “Behind the shared silence of MS [note AB: pseudonym of the maker space], in the flow of an activity shared with other people, breaking silence could be a way to extend another continuity: feeling part of the ‘becoming of society’, getting a sense of ‘togetherness’ and community and inscribing oneself in a flow of activities that overtakes one’s own bubble” (de Vaujany and Aroles 2019, p. 218). The study by de Vaujany and Aroles shows how spaces and atmospheres are created in action by the subjects. It is particularly relevant for this work when it comes to characterizing the practices of creating closeness or distance in everyday CWS life (see result Chap. 8.1). Silence and noise are not only relevant for maker spaces, but, as the present study will show, they are also significant characteristics for the examined coworking atmospheres. (3) A third study relevant in the context of this work is that of Julie Fabbri (2016), who, like Bender, pursues a relational understanding of space (referring to Massey 2005; Sergot and Saives 2016), according to which (work) spaces are socially produced and at the same time produce the social and come about through the interaction of human and non-human actors. In the context of a case study, Fabbri analyzes a CWS in this regard in view of the interweaving of spa-

106

4  Connection to the Object of Investigation and State of Research

tial and temporal dimensions in everyday CWS life (see for this and the following explanations of the paragraph Fabbri 2016). Concretely, Fabbri understands CWSs as shared organizational work spaces that are used both for work and for events4. The compatibility of these two activities at the same place is possible through the flexibility and mobility of the non-human space (e.g. by movable furniture), the optimization of certain areas for the use for events as well as by the separation in work time and no work time. Fabbri focuses in her contribution especially on a social event of the examined CWS and the interaction of human and non-human actors as well as the strong ritualization of this event. The analysis of the relational space of the examined CWS is also rather exemplary here, as it is a secondary analysis of the ethnographic case study conducted as part of her dissertation. Fabbri also points out that visual, participatory and autoethnographic methods are useful for analyzing the mutual relationships of space, time and organization—especially when it comes to understanding the social and material processes at work in collaborative spaces. (4) While Bender (2013) and de Vaujany and Aroles (2019) focus on the constitution of workspaces in action and Fabbri (2016) focuses on the spaces in their arrangement, the fourth study by Boukje Cnossen and Nicolas Bencherki (2019) pays equal attention to the interaction of spatial arrangements and practices. The authors examine in their ethnographic study of two creative hubs, what role space plays for the emergence and persistence of organizations and pursue a praxeological approach (cf. to this and the following statements of the paragraph Cnossen and Bencherki 2019). They understand space concretely as a material assemblage: “Space intertwines artefacts and practices in a homogeneous whole” (ibid., p. 1061). With regard to the duality of space, the authors emphasize like Löw also, that space (here as a material assemblage or at Löw as a relational arrangement) enables or prevents practices or action, and at the same time also practices (which are always material) determine and shape space. The results of the study show that the spatial arrangements ensure that organizational practices persist, which in turn endow the spatial arrangements with meaning and make them what they are. For the duality of space and the associated reflexive relation of space and practices, Cnossen and Bencherki bring various examples from the empirical

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).

4.2  The Spaces and Atmospheres of Coworking Spaces

107

data.5 This reflexive relationship, according to Cnossen and Bencherki, contributes to the emergence of new organizations. The role of moods and atmospheres is not explicitly considered.

4.2.2 The Creation of Atmospheres in the Context of Curating The following three studies focus on aspects of the creation of atmospheres in the context of curating as aesthetic work. (5) The fifth study presented here was conducted by Mikko Jakonen, Nina Kivinen, Perttu Salovaara and Piia Hirkman (2017). The authors draw on a theoretical concept related to atmospheres and understand CWSs as affective assemblages (cf. among others Deleuze and Guattari 1987) of space, people and objects, which generate affects that set the coworkers in motion and thus allow them to participate in encounters.6 As a result of the investigation, in which three case studies were conducted, it shows that the curating of the affective assemblages of CWSs is done with the aim of enabling and creating (intended and unintended) encounters between users: Thus, the non-human space or social events are designed in such a way that encounters are fostered. This is conceptualized by Jakonen and his colleagues as economy of encounters. In this regard, the authors criticize curating but also with regard to a commodification of the idea of community and encounters: “[A]s our research

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.

108

4  Connection to the Object of Investigation and State of Research

suggests some of these spatial norms remain invisible for the members of the space, although the instrumental space design strongly influences how encounters take place. However, members can to some extent opt out of these affectual assemblages” (Jakonen et al. 2017, p. 241). Although the economy of encounters is the declared goal of CWSs and encounters and social interactions between the coworkers are curated materially and socially by the operators, this does not mean that interactions necessarily take place. Thus, the authors also point out in their study that the willingness of the users to engage in encounters must be present. In doing so, the authors do not only assume an effect of the curated space on the action, but also concede that the coworkers influence the encounter spaces with their action, by engaging in the encounters in social areas or at events or by withdrawing from the effect of the spaces as encounter spaces and avoiding encounters.7 The justification for avoiding encounters is limited to one argument: The primary focus of the users lies on completing their own work and securing their existence, especially when it comes to persons with precarious employment conditions. Further possible reasons for avoiding encounters or how the users as acting subjects shape the spaces beyond that are not discussed by Jakonen and his research team. They also have a broader understanding of CWSs than the present work and examine in addition to an (also in the understanding of this work underlying) open CWS also an activity-based office of a company as well as an “office hotel” without open-space area. While in the activity-based office the overarching company context leads to the company interests being in the foreground in the economy of encounters, it is the arrangement of the physical-material space that limits movements and encounters in the office hotel. (6) Marko Orel and María del Mar Alonso Almeida (2019) are interested in their study in the ambience of collaboration in coworking environments. They ask to what extent the ambience increases the likelihood of interactions and cooperation among users (cf. Orel and Alonso Almeida 2019 for this and the following statements of the paragraph). The CWS ambience is defined by the authors in general as “the look and the feel of a work environment which can arouse certain moods

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.

4.2  The Spaces and Atmospheres of Coworking Spaces

109

towards a particular place and its users” (ibid., p. 273). As part of the exploratory study in six CWSs, Orel and Alonso Almeida conducted observations and short interviews with members of the operating teams. As results, the authors state that collaborative activities between CWS users can be promoted by two levers: (a) By elements of the non-human space and (b) by mediation activities by the CWS managers. Thus, (a) the positioning of furniture, the shared use of tables or modular space elements create opportunities for interactions, while the latter also enable privacy. Furthermore, temperature, color scheme, light or the use of plants should be designed in such a way that the majority of users are satisfied with them and thus increase their openness for interactions. In addition, the authors highlight the soundscapes of the CWS in relation to the influence of the ambience of the CWS as significant. In the context of workspaces, the control of noise is important, be it in the form of background music or sounds or the establishment of different volume zones in the CWS, as well as the use of modular space elements. Regarding (b): The CWS managers and especially the community managers (i.e. coworking hosts) act as mediators according to the authors and apply various techniques that strengthen interactions and collaborative activities, whereby the building of mutual trust among the members is important. Thus, Orel and Alonso Almeida, like Merkel (2015), emphasize the importance of the material and social strategies of curating (cf. Sect. 2.2.3), through which a positive ambience for interactions and cooperation is created and provide insight into the subjective assessments of the operators. A critical point to note is that the authors look at the phenomenon superficially and do not go into more detail on the concept of ambience itself, apart from the above-mentioned definition, and do not directly include it in the analysis to characterize it in detail. Ambience (which is generally characterized as “positive”) is rather conceptually positioned as a mediating construct between the material or social curating and the outcome, namely the enabling of interactions and cooperation. The perspective of the users as space-acting subjects is also not illuminated in the study. (7) François-Xavier de Vaujany, Aurore Dandoy, Albane Grandazzi and Stéphanie Faure (2019), whose study has already been referred to, use concretely the concept of atmosphere and approach the phenomenon (auto-)ethnographically (cf. for the following explanations of the paragraph de Vaujany et al. 2019). In their phenomenological observation of tours of collaborative spaces, they refer to Merleau-Ponty (1974, 1986). The experience, feelings and emotions of the researchers are also in the focus of the observation. More precisely, the authors examine

110

4  Connection to the Object of Investigation and State of Research

how the hosts or “tour guides” of collaborative spaces8 create certain atmospheres during the visit of the place, in order to evoke bodily experiences and feelings among the participants of the tour. As a result, they identify four emotional registers that are generated by the tour guides in the production of atmospheres during the tour: “initiation”, “commodification”, “selection” and “gamification”. The tour guides use the different emotional registers to create a specific organizational atmosphere. The study is significant because it focuses on the importance of atmospheres and emotions in relation to collaborative spaces. It should be noted that the authors link the atmospheres to the tour guides as those who produce the atmosphere, by highlighting certain directions, gestures, artifacts and narratives. The non-human space or other human participants9 are not considered independently, but as participants of the tour included in the analysis.

4.2.3 The Curators of Coworking Spaces While the previous section looked at studies that focused on atmospheres and their creation, the following studies examine more closely the curators of atmospheres: the coworking hosts. (8) The qualitative empirical study by Silvia Ivaldi, Ivana Pais and Giuseppe Scaratti (2018) not only addresses the role of coworking hosts, but also presents a typology of CWSs (cf. the following explanations of the paragraph Ivaldi et al. 2018). The authors identify four different types of CWSs, whose orientation and role of the coworking hosts are differently situated (and thus a different understanding of CWSs as spaces of work and community): While the infrastructure CWS focuses on the management of the physical-material (work) space, the relational-oriented CWS aims at promoting information and knowledge transfer among the coworkers. The network CWS focuses on fostering professional contacts with other coworkers and with people outside the CWS. The welfare CWS shapes the structure of the CWS as a response to social or

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).

4.2  The Spaces and Atmospheres of Coworking Spaces

111

c­ ultural issues that affect society (e.g. sustainability or migration). Drawing on Ann L. Cunliffe (2009), Ivaldi and her research team also use different manager profiles to look at the coworking hosts and their activities from different theoretical perspectives. One profile is the manager as actor with reference to Goffman’s (2005) theater metaphor, in order to analyze the sociomaterial space and the role that the hosts play in the CWS as mediators.10 As performers, coworking hosts organize the front and back stages of the CWS as a theater performance. This also requires wearing (metaphorical) masks and clothes. The challenge here is to maintain a balance between “authenticity, the need to adapt to different contexts, and the needs of the situation” (Ivaldi et al. 2018, p. 222) and a related impression management, especially in contexts that require emotional work.11 As the authors work out for their study, the coworking managers take on different roles depending on the respective CWS type: They are either liaisons (i.e. a separate group from the coworkers in the infrastructure CWS), coordinators (within their own group, to which the coworkers also belong in the case of the relational CWS), consultants (in the welfare CWS) or gatekeepers or representatives of the CWS towards external parties (as in the case of the network CWS). (9) The coworking hosts as curators of CWSs are also addressed by Janet Merkel (2015) in her qualitative study, which has already been discussed in relation to the material and social strategies of curating (cf. the following explanations of the paragraph Merkel 2015). The author identifies two different types of coworking hosts, who differ in how they understand and interpret their own activity: The service providers and the visionaries: “While the service provider concentrates on the work aspect associated with facilitating a good work environment and providing attendant services, the visionary host is more concerned with enabling the ‘co’ aspects of coworking such as communication, community and collaboration among the coworkers” (Merkel 2015, p. 128). With regard to the two core

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 personrelated 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.).

112

4  Connection to the Object of Investigation and State of Research

f­unctions of CWSs identified, the service providers focus on curating the work and the associated spaces, while the visionaries put curating the community at the center of their work. The impact of the different approaches to curating or the roles of the coworking hosts on the atmospheres or how different user groups are addressed is even less explored. Based on the existing studies, however, it can be assumed that the way CWSs are curated by coworking hosts affects which user groups are addressed and which social interactions occur among coworkers or coworkers and external parties (cf. Brown 2017, p. 121). For example, if no social interactions are fostered by the coworking hosts (in the role of service providers, cf. Merkel (2015)) as part of the curating process (in the case of the infrastructure CWS, cf. Ivaldi et al. (2018)), it can be assumed that this is also less important for the users of such a CWS. The coworking hosts thus have an important and complex role as conductors or mediators of the CWS, as Julie Brown (2017, p. 121) emphasizes. The effectiveness of the curators and the curating process is thus significant, but should not be overstated. The users also shape the CWS spaces and atmospheres in their everyday actions, as the studies in Sect. 4.2.1 have shown. After the spaces and atmospheres of offices and CWSs have been examined with reference to the existing research, the following section will highlight the importance of community in the context of modern office work, and then present research works that have dealt with CWS communities in a narrower sense.

4.3 Community in the Context of Modern Office Work12 “In many ways it [note AB: community] can play as a ‘comfort blanket’, downplaying and obscuring the potentially threatening and individualizing forces of new organizational contexts and practices.” (Dale and Burrell 2010, p. 29)

As already explained in Sect. 4.1, the significance of the office as a place of communitization has increased again in the course of the flexibilization of work. ‘Community’ is also deliberately used as a means of modern management in the organizational context to create certain aspects of the identity of the employees

12 This

chapter was published in a condensed form in Bernhardt (2022).

4.3  Community in the Context of Modern Office Work

113

and their identification with the institution13 (Dale and Burrell 2010, p. 27 f.): “[T]he spatial construction of ‘community’ attempts to recombine […] individualized identities into a new form of collectivism: one which is centred on identification with organizational goals and, indeed, on the organization itself as a source of collective identity” (Dale and Burrell 2010, p. 30). This is done by influencing communal atmospheres, which are important for the experience of belonging (cf. Julmi 2015). The management of communal atmospheres can be done by means of various strategies: Firstly, by consciously employed rituals (cf. ibid.), secondly, by the symbolic-material design of the non-human space and thirdly, by an appropriate rhetoric (cf. Dale and Burrell 2010). While the first and third strategy can be linked to the social strategies of curating in the CWS context, the second can be understood analogously to the material curating. Let us first look at the first strategy: Rituals can be used as a targeted technique to create communal atmospheres. Rituals generally represent “ingrained behaviours” that are performed regularly and through which the communal atmosphere is updated in the context of a common situation (Julmi 2015, p. 156 f.). In the CWS context, this can include, for example, rituals of greeting, small talk, having a cup of coffee together in the morning or the curated events for the co-workers (cf. in particular the result Sects. 8.1.2 and 8.3). Julmi (2015, p. 157) distinguishes between everyday and non-everyday rituals, i.e. ceremonies14, as well as between spontaneously and involuntarily occurring and consciously employed rituals. Thus, rituals can also be used and instrumentalized by the organizational management as a technique for creating communal atmospheres, as is the case with the curated events of CWSs (cf. ibid.).15 Secondly, organizations rely on an appropriate symbolic-material design of the non-human space to evoke communal atmospheres and thus influence the affective bonds of the employees (cf. Dale and Burrell 2010, p. 28). Thus, in the case

13 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). 14 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. 15 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).

114

4  Connection to the Object of Investigation and State of Research

of aestheticized workspaces, the materialization of community (through an open, transparent office architecture and corresponding artifacts and symbols) also plays a role, as it is also visible in the context of CWSs (cf. Sect. 2.2.5): Flexible open-space office workspaces and desk sharing are supposed to symbolize openness, transparency and greater homogeneity among the employees (and thus associated flat hierarchies)16 (Dale and Burrell 2010, p. 25). This constructs a community that resembles the traditional understanding of community by Tönnies, although it is artificially produced (Dale and Burrell 2010, p. 34). This is shown thirdly by a corresponding rhetoric that constructs community linguistically. For example, organizations present themselves in the narrative of the village as a metaphor for a traditional community of place (cf. Tönnies 1963) (Dale and Burrell 2010, p. 24). As already became clear in the study by Petendra (2015), the flexible office does not mean the disappearance of power relations, but they take on a new form, as the constellation of old-timers and newcomers shows. But also the exclusion of people who do not fit into the community poses a danger (Dale and Burrell 2010, p. 32), which is also relevant in the context of CWSs (Brown 2017; Merkel 2018a). For the social formations in CWSs, it is discursively emphasized that they are communities. In the following, existing research on CWSs as communities will be examined more closely.

4.4 Coworking Space Communities As already explained at various points, the coworking community is a central element of coworking, which also stood in the focus of the scientific CWS research with regard to various aspects, especially in relation to social interactions and encounters (cf. Sect. 2.2.2). In the following, five qualitative empirical studies are presented that have considered CWSs as communities. (1) The study by Clay Spinuzzi, Zlatko Bodrožić, Giuseppe Scaratti and Silvia Ivaldi (2019) is relevant for this work, as it deals with the analytical sharpening of the concepts of community and collaboration in the context of CWSs and in this regard takes up the distinction between community and society made by Fer-

16 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).

4.4  Coworking Space Communities

115

dinand Tönnies (cf. for the following explanations of the section Spinuzzi et al. 2019). In doing so, the authors draw on Paul S. Adler’s and Charles Heckscher’s (2006) distinction of social formations in the organisational context, which identify a third type as an expression of current developments in addition to community and society: that of the “Collaborative Community”, which is characterized by the fact that knowledge workers are focused on collaboration, which is justified by a cooperative, reciprocal activity in relation to a common goal and is based on mutual understanding and trust. From this, Spinuzzi and his research team derive two ideal types of CWS communities, which they characterize in terms of knowledge formation: “Gesellschaft” and “Collaborative” (Spinuzzi et al. 2019, p. 122 ff.): 1. Gesellschaft in the CWS context is characterized by the operators as dominant actors, who benefit disproportionately from the knowledge formation in the CWS. CWSs of the type Gesellschaft have a focus on individuality and business interests. A market-oriented service contract between operators and coworkers, in which the operators determine the rules of the CWS as a condition of membership, is characteristic. The relationships between the coworkers are aligned with institutional values or business interests. 2. Collaborative is characterized by the fact that all participants benefit proportionately from the knowledge formation in the CWS. There is a collaborative interaction between operators and coworkers, which is evident, for example, in the fact that CWS rules are developed jointly. In addition, the CWS is oriented towards networked relationships among the coworkers on the basis of the shared interest in common project goals.

The authors operationalize these ideal types for their empirical investigation and apply the categories deductively within the framework of six case studies17, whereby operator interviews, observations and also interviews with coworkers were conducted. The presentation of results is mainly determined by the perspective of the operators. As a result, the authors state that the CWSs in reality represent rather mixed forms with regard to the types and also in relation to the individual categories. The vast majority of the CWSs examined belong to the type Gesellschaft, i.e. the CWSs are subject to a market logic (Bernhardt 2021, p. 55): “[T]hat logic guided the community and collaboration in these sites in ways that

17 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).

116

4  Connection to the Object of Investigation and State of Research

do not square with many of the claims in the literature” (Spinuzzi et al. 2019, p. 133). In some cases, the logic of “collaborative communities” also comes into play, although this is emergent and not dominant. With regard to the coworker relationships in CWSs, Spinuzzi and his research team accordingly state that there is cooperation among the coworkers and also openness to cooperation, but that in the majority of cases coworkers work on their projects side by side and here mainly camaraderie and emotional support are important. In this regard, the authors see a discrepancy: “We see a striking contrast between the sites’ professed openness to collaborate and the reality of their demonstrating relatively little collaboration in the sense of coworking on a common project objective. We also see a contrast between the original idea of coworking, with its aspiration to develop a new model of workplace and community, and the current dominance of the Gesellschaft community. Yet we also see potential for the ongoing development of collaborative communities in coworking.” (Spinuzzi et al. 2019, p. 131 f., emphasis in original)

By applying the typology deductively, the authors assume that CWSs are “collaborative communities” and find that there is less cooperation in CWSs than is propagated. In doing so, they exclude in advance that the social relationships in the CWS are organized as (in their understanding traditional) community with the justification: “Coworking sites, we argue, are not set up as Gemeinschaft communities: As a historically new form of organizing, coworking sites are not based on blood relations and loyalty but typically charge their members (and welcome new members)” (Spinuzzi et al. 2019, p. 121). The understanding of community in the present work is different. It also assumes a coexistence of communitization and societization (cf. Sect. 3.5.1). In this work, communitizations are understood as social formations that are characterized, among other things, by a sense of belonging (together). These do not have to be hierarchically organized, but can also be equal and self-organized. They can be based on shared values or justified by aesthetics and seduction. With this openness with regard to what communitization means in everyday CWS life, the very broad understanding of community in the field is to be met. It is not only applied to the observable social relationships, but also to the experienced social relationships, whereby traditional community images can also play a role.18 An important finding of the study by Spinuzzi and

18 In this study, cooperation is understood as social interaction (cf. Gerdenitsch et al. 2016) and does not represent an independent form of CWS community.

4.4  Coworking Space Communities

117

his research team is that mixed forms are characteristic in reality (Bernhardt 2021, p. 55). The authors also suggest with regard to further research to use the typology as an analytical framework to examine internal tensions in a concrete CWS. Although the typology of Spinuzzi et al. (2019) is not taken up in the present work, it nevertheless follows the suggestion (cf. Chap. 13). (2) The second study, an explorative ethnographic investigation of a CWS by Tim Butcher (2013) refers to the new connection of work and community in the context of coworking and works out how community is inherent in the examined CWS (cf. for the following explanations of the paragraph Butcher 2013). To this end, the researcher shows the symbolism of community, whereby symbols are created jointly by coworkers, but also set by the operators (such as e.g. member bulletin board, CWS stickers or T-shirts). In addition, he highlights communal rituals (such as e.g. a joint lunch event, the CWS tour or “Town Hall Meetings”) as significant. Butcher diagnoses with regard to the examined CWS a collective sense of belonging, which is curated by the operators: “Hub Melbourne’s [note AB: name of the examined CWS] symbols and rituals are wilfully ‘curated’ to organise a purposeful form of collectivism” (Butcher 2013, p. 9). He understands community in the context of CWSs not as a traditional one, but rather the community symbolism is deliberately used as part of a neoliberal entrepreneurial endeavour. Although communal atmospheres are not at the centre of his investigation, Butcher also addresses the spatial atmospheres of the examined CWS, when he e.g. states: “Hub Melbourne is somewhere few will feel uncomfortable.” (Butcher 2013, p. 7) or “[I]t can feel more like home than work […]. It can also just as easily feel like a classroom or design studio, as desks are wheeled away, and whiteboards are slid in” (ibid.). The elaboration of such (communal) atmospheres is a goal of the present work. (3) A third study, which also focuses on exploring community in CWSs and which focuses on practices, is that of Lyndon E. Garrett, Gretchen M. Spreitzer and Peter A. Bacevice (2017). In the context of a qualitative case study, they examine how the members of a self-organized CWS create a Sense of Community (SOC)19 collectively through their everyday practices (cf. Garrett et al. 2017 for

19  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.).

118

4  Connection to the Object of Investigation and State of Research

this and the following explanations of the paragraph). The authors identify three types of communitizing practices or, as they call them, interacts, that contribute to a SOC: first, Endorsing, i.e. mutually affirming a shared common vision of community (e.g. by providing a tour through the CWS or a trial week for new members, in which the potential users and the members of the CWS find out if they fit together). Second, Encountering, i.e. encountering moments of community that reinforce the SOC. Specifically, this means that users observe social norms, identify commonalities and perceive the potential of the SOC, without necessarily being involved in the social events and other communal moments. This involves mainly passive members who focus on their work in the CWS. However, to experience moments of community, it also requires, thirdly, according to the authors, engaged active members who voluntarily participate in the community activities. Garrett and his research team identify three forms of Engaging: Creating shared routines, participating in social events and taking on responsibilities towards the community. The authors point out that the practices of Endorsing, Encountering and Engaging are not independent of each other. While the mutual affirmation of the vision is fundamental for all members to initiate the SOC at all, the maintenance of the SOC requires both Encountering through passive participation and Engaging through active participation. The coworkers themselves decide how they want to contribute to the community according to their need for social bonding and to what extent they want to preserve their autonomy and independence. The study by Garrett et al. (2017) provides helpful insights into everyday communitizing practices in a CWS. It becomes clear that autonomy and voluntariness are of high importance for the emergence of a SOC or a sense of belonging in CWSs. It is also important to note that a “passive” membership is not sanctioned in this regard. However, it is critical to point out that the case study by Garrett and his research team is a special case of a self-organized CWS that emphasizes the function of communitizing particularly strongly and also has a special admission process for new members. The study does not consistently distinguish between operators and coworkers, which has to do with the peculiarity of the self-organized CWS, in which there is no clearly assigned role of a community manager. Accordingly, practices of curating are not shown. In addition, the study emphasizes that as an expression of the SOC, the members feel free to express their “authentic selves” and do not have to play roles as in the corporate context. However, it can be assumed that coworkersv—similar to the coworking hosts (cf. Ivaldi et al. 2018)—take on roles in the social situation and that there are also social expectations and constraints in the CWS context, although these may be lower than in a conventional corporate context.

4.4  Coworking Space Communities

119

(4) The study by Andrej Rus and Marko Orel (2015) characterizes CWSs as places of a “community of work” (COW) (cf. Rus and Orel 2015 for the following explanations of the paragraph). It is of interest for this work, as the authors, like Butcher (2013), highlight the new connection between work and community in the context of CWSs. They also draw attention to the importance of curating community within the framework of community building. The authors understand the COW as a modern community, distinct from the traditional understanding of community, which is characterized by attributes such as sharing, belonging, reciprocity and trust, and at the same time by diversity and heterogeneity of its members, as well as openness to new and other communities: “Its defining feature is that social relations are arranged to support individual genius in their/its pursuit of creative expression” (Rus and Orel 2015, p. 1023). This is associated with the enablement of unrestricted exchange of information and knowledge. The authors also take up the SOC concept and emphasize in this regard that it is important for successful CWSs to create a strong SOC. In doing so, Rus and Orel attribute special importance to the process of creating such a COW, which they exemplify by means of an ethnographic case study. In the case, communitization preceded the actual physical-material CWS in time, creating a corresponding demand for a common physical-material space in advance, which ultimately led to the successful operation of the CWS. For the creation of a COW, four casespecific development phases are worked out: a learning phase, a phase of community building in the narrower sense (within the framework of weekly coworking sessions), a ground-testing phase (within the framework of two time-limited popup CWS projects), and finally a co-creation phase, in which the physical, social and organizational aspects of the CWS were jointly developed and it came to the institutionalization of the CWS. In doing so, the authors point out that enabling, moderating and managing interactions within the framework of community management are significant for community building. Furthermore, they emphasize the importance of involving the users in the context of a co-creation process for building a successful CWS. In doing so, the authors stress that the formation of a COW requires that the new social relations are based on “strong ties”, i.e. strong bonds, that create the trust that is required for the exchange of information, ideas and knowledge among the people: “Such ties do not emerge without intense interaction and common interest” (ibid., p. 1034). Here it is critical to add that the social relations in established CWSs are also characterized by “weak ties” and social interactions can also be less intense (cf. result Chap. 11). How communitization takes place in the everyday life of established CWSs and how communal atmospheres are created and experienced in this context is not addressed in the study by Rus and Orel.

120

4  Connection to the Object of Investigation and State of Research

(5) A final study that should be mentioned here is that of Blagoy Blagoev, Jana Costas and Dan Kärreman (cf. Blagoev et al. 2019 for the following explanations of the paragraph). In their ethnographic investigation of a CWS, they highlight the organizational character of CWSs and their communities: “[T]he betahaus [note AB: name of the examined CWS] community acted a lot like an organization despite being experienced as fundamentally different from traditional formal organizations” (Blagoev et al. 2019, p. 895). In addition to an SOC, CWSs thus provide as social collectives with a clear organizational dimension the framework for working in terms of co-discipline, daily routines and, as also significant in the other studies presented, common rituals (such as the weekly CWS breakfast)— elements that are also relevant in the present study. Blagoev and his research team also emphasize that the interplay of informal and formal relationships in such settings is important. They conceive the community of the examined CWS as a “[v] alue-driven community” (ibid., p. 903), which is characterized by the values of sharing, openness and individuality. With emphasis on the organizational dimension of CWSs, the authors also pay attention to the core function of workspace. However, the role of (communal as well as work) atmospheres is also not the subject of the investigation here.

4.5 Summary of the State of Research and Research Gap The following recapitulates the existing research on CWSs and related concepts with regard to the research project of the present work, in order to show which research gaps exist and what scientific contribution this work aims to make. The review of the studies on CWSs or Collaborative Spaces and their spaces and atmospheres (Sect. 4.2) has shown that various aspects have already been addressed: The relational spaces and their constitution in action have been considered in different ways, the generation of atmospheres in the context of curating has been examined and the curators of CWSs have been taken a closer look at. The view of the state of the art makes clear that atmospheres are of importance in the context of CWSs. However, the studies that deal with the atmospheres and their generation are mainly limited to the aesthetic work in the context of curating. Here, the focus is especially on communal atmospheres of encounter, interaction or collaboration, other characters remain unilluminated. However, it would also be of interest to see how atmospheres of work look like in CWSs or whether there are also communal atmospheres that are not characterized by interactions. De Vaujany and his research team (2019) do get closer to the atmospheres of Collaborative

4.5  Summary of the State of Research and Research Gap

121

Spaces by working out the emotional states that are generated by the tour guides, but they do not examine spatial atmospheres. Also, how the atmospheres generated in the context of curating in turn affect the users has been little investigated. Overall, the view of the users as spatial actors and atmosphere sensing and co-creating subjects received comparatively little attention from previous research. How coworkers appropriate the spaces of CWSs for themselves in everyday life, how they, for example, seek out certain places for working and avoid others, or how they design their personal work spaces and the associated atmospheres, are still open questions that are pursued in the context of this work. That atmospheres and affects are of importance for the work space constitutions of coworkers is already indicated by the study of Bender (2013). The review of existing research on spaces and atmospheres leads to the conclusion that a comprehensive analytical examination of the spatial atmospheres of CWSs, as envisaged in the context of this work, has not yet been carried out. In contrast, in the context of the present study, atmospheres are analyzed in more detail both from the perspective of the spatial arrangements, whose effects are shaped in the context of curating as aesthetic work, and—and this is the focus of the examination—from the perspective of the perceiving subjects, who appropriate the CWS spaces. That is, both the production aesthetics and the reception aesthetics are taken into account. The aim is to understand more deeply the significance of spaces and atmospheres in everyday CWS life or in the everyday life of the CWS users. The focus of the examination is on both the atmospheres of work and the communal atmospheres, whereby the latter do not have to be characterized solely by encounters and interactions. The studies presented on CWSs as communities (Sect. 4.4) in turn highlight important aspects of community in the CWS context, such as communal rituals and practices, the curating of community or the SOC. The studies show that CWSs connect work and community in a new way—whether CWSs are understood as a “community of work” (Rus and Orel 2015), that “community at work” (Butcher 2013) takes place in CWSs, or that the CWS “community acted […] like an organization” (Blagoev et al. 2019, p. 895) (cf. on this and the following remarks Bernhardt 2021, p. 55). At the same time, the discussion of the studies has shown that blind spots can also be found in each case. Thus, it can be stated that the importance of spatial communal atmospheres is hardly addressed20 and

20 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.

122

4  Connection to the Object of Investigation and State of Research

the experience of community from the subject perspective of the actively acting users is also neglected. Moreover, the definitions of community underlying the studies are different. The present work pursues an open understanding of communization in the context of CWSs, in order to meet the different meanings of community in the field. In doing so, the communal atmospheres and the associated sense of belonging (together) are placed at the center of attention. A holistic investigation is carried out with regard to the communal atmospheres, their production within the framework of curating as aesthetic work and their experience from the perspective of the coworkers. Unlike Spinuzzi and his research team (2019), who exclude feelings in the context of community in their study (cf. footnote 17 in Chap. 4), this study emphasizes atmospheres and feelings more. In doing so, not only the observable social formations, but also the social formations experienced by the users are examined more closely. The aim of this study is to work out the character of the CWS communitizations and the associated atmospheres more closely and to shed more light on the special importance of communality at work with a focus on the spatial atmospheres. What Spinuzzi et al. (2019) did not investigate in their study and point out as interesting for future research, this work also brings into focus: namely hybrid forms, or more precisely for this study the coexistence of communitization and societization in everyday CWS life and tensions that can result from it, as well as the handling of them and the role of atmospheres. For although the narrative of community is strong in the coworking discourse, Spinuzzi et al. (2019) have shown that CWSs are primarily an expression of societization (cf. Bernhardt 2021, p. 55). Against the background of the research gap presented here, the objectives of the present work related to it and with regard to the theoretical reference concepts, the preliminary considerations are transferred into a conceptual framework of their own and the research questions of this study are formulated in the following.

5

Intermediate Conclusion: Conceptual Framing and Research Questions

CWSs represent spaces that connect work and community in new ways. The central research interest of this work is to explore the significance of spatial atmospheres in everyday CWS life or in the everyday life of the coworkers. In particular, the subject perspective of the space-acting users should be taken into account. Based on the previous theoretical considerations and the review of the state of empirical research, the own research perspective is now framed as a conceptual framework (Sect. 5.1). Subsequently, the research questions are presented (Sect. 5.2).

5.1 Conceptual Framing for the Exploration of the Spaces and Atmospheres of Coworking As already shown in Sect. 3.2.4, the spaces and atmospheres of CWSs are analyzed from two perspectives in this work. From the theoretical building blocks presented, the following general conceptual framing results for the present study (see Fig. 5.1). Following the relational concept of space, CWSs are regarded as socially constructed spaces. By analyzing space both in its construction and from the perspective of the people as constructors (see Herrmann 2010, p. 16), the duality of space is taken into account (see Bernhardt 2022 for this and the following explanations of the paragraph). Thus, both the perspective of the coworkers as acting subjects is traced, as well as the spatial arrangements and their effects on the action are examined more closely, in order to realize a “complete and comprehensive spatial analysis” (Schroer 2016, p. 177). The spatial atmospheres arise in the connection of perceiving subjects and perceived spatial arrangements. In this process, p­ eople © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 A. Bernhardt, Coworking Atmospheres, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41193-0_5

123

124

5  Intermediate Conclusion: Conceptual Framing and Research …

Fig. 5.1   General conceptual framing—analysis of CWS spaces and atmospheres. (Own illustration)

are both perceiving subjects and elements of the space. In their bodily presence, they are constructors of space and in their corporeality also at the same time placed elements, which in turn are perceived by the other present in the common situation. Atmospheres are thus not only receptively perceived, but also influenced or even created by the perceiving subjects (Heibach 2012, p. 12). The following sections explain the individual components of the analysis framework in more detail: (1) CWS spaces in their construction: CWSs are institutionalized workspaces and are associated with standardized spacings and syntheses. They are determined by characteristic spatial arrangements with corresponding atmospheres, which are prepared in terms of their perception as part of the curating process as aesthetic work. For the spatial arrangements, certain work settings are typical, which allow different behaviors and prevent others. Accordingly, within the framework of this work, on the one hand, it is a matter of examining the spatial arrangements and atmospheres in their construction or composition from the object perspective (cf. Michels 2015). This means that typical arrangements of people, things, rules, behaviors, social practices and their effects are in the focus of observation. In other words: The material shape of

5.1  Conceptual Framing for the Exploration of the Spaces …

125

CWS spaces (Sturm 2000, p. 199 ff.) is of interest, i.e. with Löw’s terminology “the social goods and people in their prearranged arrangements and with their material and symbolic aspects as well as their atmospheric effect” (Löw 2015, p. 222). (2) Coworkers as constructors of space: The focus of the observation is directed at the reconstruction of the perspective of the subjects as actively shaping constructors of space. In this respect, this work adopts a subject-oriented sociological research perspective (cf. Bolte 1983), which “particularly brings into view the mutual constitutive relationship between human and society” (ibid., p. 15) and considers it from the perspective of the subjects. Transferred to the duality of space, the subjects are placed in the focus as shaped by spatial structures (according to Löw a part of the social structures) as well as shaping the space (cf. Bolte 1983). Concretely, the perspective of the coworkers, who appropriate the spatial arrangements of CWSs in their everyday work, is examined more closely. Of interest is how the users experience the CWS-arrangements and their external effects and how they constitute their own spaces and atmospheres for themselves in the process of appropriation. Following the relational concept of space, the assumption is based that different users constitute different spaces and atmospheres at one place, depending on their habitus, mood and relational positioning. Absolute space images are also part of the analysis, as they shape the everyday understanding of space and are present in the minds of CWS users (and operators). (3) Atmospheres as mediating entities: Atmospheres connect perceiving subjects and perceived spatial arrangements and as mediating entities (Rauh 2018, p. 129) they relate the subjective well-being and environmental qualities to each other. The spatial atmospheres in the context of CWSs are—viewed from the object of perception—the external effect of spatial arrangements, which are designed with regard to the production aesthetics as part of the curating process as aesthetic work. And they are also—viewed from the subject of perception—constituted by the present users, who are often themselves also aesthetic workers (cf. Reckwitz 2014). Atmospheres are perceived in the bodily presence situation-related and prereflective through all senses. At the same time, experienced spaces and atmospheres are also accessible in memory and imagination. The role of coworking atmospheres is thus illuminated from two perspectives in the context of this work: as an external effect of space and as one’s own wellbeing in space. Taking into account the two core functions of CWSs, the conceptual framework can be specified accordingly (see Fig. 5.2).

126

5  Intermediate Conclusion: Conceptual Framing and Research …

Fig. 5.2   Conceptual framing—analysis of CWS spaces and atmospheres of work and communitization. (Own illustration)

The illustration takes into account the two core functions that CWSs are primarily spaces of work, but their significance also lies in the fact that they are also spaces of communitization. The basic assumption for this is that the two core functions of CWSs are inherent in the spatial arrangements, as well as in the subjective appropriation of spaces and in the atmospheres. This allows for different work atmospheres and communal atmospheres to be characterized for CWSs. Accordingly, with regard to the two sides of atmospheres, it is examined how, on the one hand, the spaces of CWSs become work or community spaces and thus how certain work or communal atmospheres are created and, on the other hand, how the users appropriate the CWSs as work or community spaces for themselves and thus how they perceive the spatial atmospheres, but also help to create them. The overlaps between the two core functions were deliberately chosen in the illustration to make clear that work and community are not separate categories, as, for example, in relation to collaboration, professional events and workshops, or networking in the CWS. This illustration is taken up in the various chapters of the results section to clarify which part is at the center of the analysis of each

5.2  Research Questions

127

chapter. After the conceptual framework has been presented, the research questions will be discussed in more detail below.

5.2 Research Questions The present work deals with the spaces of CWSs as well as the coworkers as spatially acting subjects. The aim of this work is to comprehensively analyze the role of atmospheres—as mediating entities between spatially acting subjects and spatial arrangements—in the context of CWSs, with a view to the two core functions of CWSs and thus the special importance of community in the context of these workspaces. This leads to the following questions: How is coworking spatially organized (the spaces in their construction) and how do the coworkers develop their CWS in everyday spatial action (the subjects as constructors of space)—this in relation to the two core functions of CWSs, being work and community spaces? What significance do atmospheres play in the everyday life of CWSs or the coworkers against the background that CWSs connect work and community in a new way? Two guiding theses are based on this, which can be derived from the state of research: With regard to previous research on atmospheres of CWSs, the first thesis is that atmospheres play a special role in the everyday life of CWSs, when it comes to the creation of the spaces within the framework of curating as well as the development of the spaces by the users. To understand how exactly this happens is the task of this work. Against the background of the research that emphasizes the new connection of work and community, the second thesis is that the spatial atmospheres of CWSs (as well as the spatial arrangements and the action itself) express this new interweaving of work and community. In this respect, this work aims to shed more light on the importance of communality and associated communal atmospheres in the context of the workspaces of CWSs. This means concretely: With regard to the spatial arrangements of CWSs and their material shape, it is asked how the spatial arrangements can be characterized with regard to the elements people (members of the operating team, coworkers, event participants, café guests, external), other living beings (animals, plants) and social goods in their materiality and symbolism (office architecture, artifacts and their ecstasies) as well as associated rules, behaviors and social practices and what atmospheric effects go along with them. Here it is about working out and analyzing typical

128

5  Intermediate Conclusion: Conceptual Framing and Research …

spaces and atmospheres of CWSs and what characterizes them and how work and community are interwoven here. With reference to the core functions of CWSs, it is asked more precisely how work and community of CWSs are spatially organized: On the one hand, it is considered how the spaces become workspaces in the everyday life of CWSs and how work atmospheres are created in this context1. On the other hand, it is asked how the spaces have a communitizing effect in the everyday life of CWSs and how communal atmospheres and a sense of belonging are created. With regard to the perspective of the spatially acting users, it is asked how the coworkers develop the CWS spaces for themselves in everyday life (i.e. experience or appropriate them) and what significance they attach to them. With a focus on the primary core function of CWSs, it is asked how the users develop CWSs as spaces of work in their everyday work and how they constitute their own, personal workspaces and atmospheres that feel “right” for them. With regard to the secondary core function of CWSs and thus the development of the CWSs as spaces of communitization, it is asked how the coworkers experience their social relationships and interactions in the CWS, to what extent they participate in communitizing rituals of the CWS and to what extent they experience belonging. With regard to the distinction between communitization and societization, the question is pursued, which forms of social entities the users refer to, when it comes to the characterization of their CWS. In the interplay of subjects and spatial arrangements, the core functions of work and community, as well as the social formations of communitization and societization, the question is also raised as to what tensions may result from this, how they are dealt with and what role atmospheres play in this process. In the empirical study, two case studies are used to explore what concrete CWS places and their spaces look like, which are—compared to conventional organizations— characterized by flexibility and openness, a certain set of values, and few formal elements (cf. Blagoev et al. 2019) and how the users access them.

1 This

question is of particular interest against the background that there is often a spatial mixing of work and non-work in CWSs (cf. Sect. 2.2.5).

Part II Structure of the Empirical Study

6

Methodological Approach

The exploration of concrete CWS locations, the associated spaces and atmospheres, as well as the reconstruction of the users’ perspectives on accessing CWS spaces and their atmospheres pose challenges to the research design (cf. Sect. 3.2.4). With regard to the concrete methodological approach, the question arises as to how what is of interest in this work can be adequately captured. Textbased methods alone are not sufficient, as language reaches its limits here (cf. Warren 2002). Thus, knowledge about spaces and habitualized spatial action is mainly anchored in the practical consciousness in a bodily-material way, and also the meaning that people assign to spaces is hardly directly verbally accessible through interviews (Löw 2018, p. 75). The difficulties in relation to the verbalization of experienced spaces, atmospheres and spatial action were intercepted in this work by a triangulation of different methods, data types and sources. This allowed to approach the phenomenon of spatial atmospheres from different angles (cf. Brake 2009, p. 374) and to enable the examination of the atmospheres of CWSs from the perspective of the spatially acting subjects and from the spatial arrangements and their effects. Concretely, a research design inspired by ethnography was pursued, in which two case studies in urban CWSs are at the center. Following the principles of qualitative social research, the research design was recursively designed1, whereby the empirical approach corresponded to an iterative circular process, in which phases of data collection and analysis alternated (cf. Breidenstein et al. 2013, p. 45). Before going into the individual methods of

1 Recursively

means in this context that the individual steps are repeatedly applied to themselves, which guides the process of knowledge (Breidenstein et al. 2013, p. 45).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 A. Bernhardt, Coworking Atmospheres, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41193-0_6

131

132

6  Methodological Approach

data collection and data analysis, the selection and composition of the case studies, general remarks on ethnography and an overview of the methodological approach is provided below. In this work, I adopt an ethnographic research attitude2. With reference to Ronald Hitzler and Miriam Gothe (2015, p. 9), ethnography denotes “the exploration, the description and the understanding of the self-sense of social lifeworlds”3”. As characteristic for ethnographic research projects, the data collection of this study was oriented towards method pluralism and situational flexibility and went beyond the standard procedures of qualitative social research in order to “find out as much and as diverse as possible about the world in which one moves” (Hitzler and Gothe 2015, p. 10). Although this work was not explicitly conceived as such, it ties in with the originally called ethnographic “life-world” or later “life-world-analysis”, which was founded by Anne Honer (cf. among others Hitzler and Eisewicht 2016; Hitzler and Gothe 2015; Honer 1989, 2011a, 2013) (abbreviated as LWE in the following).4 The interest of knowledge of LWE is to understand how the actors experience their world(s), i.e. their lifeworld as well as small social lifeworlds, as meaningful (Hitzler and Eisewicht 2016, p. 24). LWE is a phenomenology-based research concept that is empirically strongly descrip-

2 Thus,

ethnography is not understood here as a method, but rather as an attitude (Breidenstein et al. 2013, p. 8; Strübing 2013, p. 75). 3 The concept of lifeworld, which goes back to the phenomenologist Edmund Husserl, generally refers to “the totality of experiencing or […] the world as it is experienced” (Hitzler and Eisewicht 2016, p. 36). Small social lifeworlds represent correlates of the subjective experience of the reality of partial or part-time cultures (cf. for this and the following explanations of the section Hitzler and Eisewicht 2016, p. 21 f.; Honer 2011b, p. 23 f.). They are “predefined by others and made intersubjectively valid in their ‘purpose setting’ sections of the everyday lifeworld, which are subjectively experienced as time-spaces of participation in special systems of meaning and are sought, traversed or only touched in the course of the day and life” (Hitzler and Eisewicht 2016, p. 22, emphasis in the original). Small emphasizes that the social lifeworlds are reduced to certain relevance systems. Social in turn emphasizes the intersubjective validity of the relevance systems in successful participations. Small social lifeworlds thus denote “participations in sections of the socially constructed and produced world of experience and life of a society” (Honer 2011b, p. 24). Small social lifeworlds provide the framework for the emergence of communities. 4 A study that has examined a CWS with a LWE approach is the master thesis by Marion Baumann (2013), where the CWS itself is considered as a small social lifeworld. In addition to the perspective of the operator on the CWS, the view of the coworkers is also reconstructed and it is worked out which meanings and functions they attribute to the CWS for their work organization.

6  Methodological Approach

133

tive oriented (ibid., p. 10). Its concern is to describe and understand the “world views” (ibid., p. 10) and the experience of the world(s). The “relevances of the [o]ther” (Honer 2013, p. 195, emphasis in the original) are thus in the focus of the interest of knowledge. In the context of research, it is now a matter of seeing the world approximately with the eyes of the researched and reconstructing the typically intended subjective meaning of their experiences (ibid.). Honer (1989, p. 297) summarizes the research concept of LWE as follows: “‘Ethnograpic life-world analysis’ denotes the attempt to reconstruct the realities of people (in modern societies) in a controlled way by combining ethnographic and phenomenological methods, i.e. practically especially by recourse to participant observation and multiphase intensive interviews. Theoretically, it is about understanding the world as it appears under ‘typical’ perspectives. And as a methodological consequence, it follows that the researcher ideally acquires practical memberships in social events and explores his field method-plurally, because it is a matter of rediscovering ‘the foreign in the vicinity’.”

World views, therefore, cannot be grasped directly, but are to be understood indirectly by taking the subjective perspective interpretively (cf. Hitzler and Eisewicht 2016, p. 10 f.). The participation in the field enables the researchers to experience and feel the lifeworlds themselves (ibid.). In other words, it is about the “painstaking looking, so to speak, through the eyes of the actors” (p. 11, emphasis in the original), as Ronald Hitzler and Paul Eisewicht (2016) put it. LWE thus means a field participation “without or with little distance” (Reichertz 2012, para. 15, emphases in the original), which is expressed in the data collection method of observant participation (cf. Sect. 6.1.3). The significance of lifeworld analysis thus lies above all, according to Honer (2013, p. 199), in the fact that “with it we improve the chance of reconstructing worlds at least approximately as people experience them, instead of the world as it looks according to the sociologist’s opinion”. The focus of LWE is thus to participate in the field as a researcher for a longer period of time and to engage in it without reservation, in order to recognize what is important to the field participants, to feel what they feel and thus to experience the “self-sense” themselves by temporarily taking over the perspective (Hitzler and Eisewicht 2016, p. 38). Characteristic for this work as well as for LWE is therefore the adoption of an emic perspective and the associated emphasis on the subjectivity of the researching person. In this respect, it was also necessary to repeatedly reflect analytically on the researcher’s own participation in the field and to distance oneself from the field (cf. Hitzler and Eisewicht 2016, p. 10) (cf. Sect. 6.3). At the center of this work are two case studies of urban CWSs, which were each examined over longer periods of time: The CWS Tabit in the Swiss metropolis Tarfstadt—a CWS with a focus on the ICT sector; and Sargas in the German metropo-

134

6  Methodological Approach

lis Salmstadt—where coworking is one of three areas alongside art and food. For both CWSs and the associated cities, pseudonyms were assigned to protect the anonymity of the interviewees. Data collection was carried out in each case using various methods (interviews, participant observation or observant participation, collecting documents and materials), types of data (verbal data and visual data) and sources of data (coworkers, members of the operating teams, researcher). Through the triangulation of methods, types of data and sources, different perspectives on the object of investigation were taken (Flick 2011, p. 12), which takes into account the consideration of spaces and atmospheres and is beneficial for an ethnographic approach: “In ethnographic research practice, the triangulation of types of data and methods as well as of theoretical perspectives leads to expanded possibilities of knowledge, which are fed by convergences but even more by the divergences that they produce or generate” (Flick 2011, p. 74). In the analysis, the different types of data should be related to each other, complement each other, illuminate blind spots and show convergences and divergences. In this context, different methods were also combined in the data analysis. Although all collected data materials were used to answer the research questions, the materials had different relevance in terms of their importance for the analysis (cf. Table 6.1 below). The following explains the concrete methodological approach in more detail, introduces the individual methods of data collection and analysis, and describes the field access and the sample in more detail.

6.1 Data Collection Table 6.1 provides an overview of the different data collection methods that were used and describes the respective samples in more detail. Since the focus of this study is on illuminating the user perspective, the semi-structured photo interviews with the coworkers of the CWSs were at the center of data collection and analysis. In this respect, the emphasis was not, as is typical for ethnographic research, on participant observation or observing participation. The latter served me to better understand the user perspective by taking this “insider view” in the context of active participation and observation as a participating coworker (cf. Honer 2013, p. 197 f.). In addition, the field notes in the context of participant observation were essential to describe the material shape of the spaces and the everyday events. To examine the organizational perspective from the point of view of the operators, semi-structured interviews with staff members of the CWSs were also conducted, partly also involving photographs. In addition, existing documents and materials from and about the studied CWSs were collected over the course of the study

5 The interviews with Tabea, Tom and Sarah were conducted as photo interviews. In this process, a total of 33 additional photographs were taken. 6 The field notes have different quality, from short entries to detailed descriptions. 7 In addition, there are eleven photos by Scott, which were not explicitly made for the photo task, as well as 20 photos by Silas and Sean, who belong to the extended circle of friends of the Sargas operating team.

(continued)

Field notes Qualitative content analysis N = 50 entries6 (Tabit: 23 (+5 outside the CWS—in the context of planning the new CWS) Sargas: 22)

Participatory observations/ Observing participations

• Descriptions of the socio-material spaces and experienced atmospheres • Observing the events in the CWS • Self-observation: How do I as a user access the CWS? Emic perspective

N = 5 interviews with members Qualitative content analysis of the operating team (Tabit: 3/ Sargas: 2 (of which two partial interviews with Samuel))5

Qualitative content analysis Hermeneutic interpretation of selected interview passages or images or combination of photographs and corresponding interview passages)

Data analysis

Semi-structured (photo-) • Organization and background interviews with members of • Curating • Pre-structuring of the spaces in rela- the operating team tion to perceiving and placing

Semi-structured photo inter- N = 22 interviews with 23 users views with users (Tabit: 11/Sargas: 11 (including two partial interviews with Sebastian, and one interview with Scott and Sophie) User photos that were included in the analysis: N = 136 (Tabit: 79/ Sargas: 577)

• Background of user • Entry into the CWS • Exploring the CWS spaces and atmospheres ○ As spaces of work ○ As spaces of communitization • Meaning of the CWS for the users • Subjective experience of the social formations of the CWS

Description of sample

Data collection

Research interest

Table 6.1   Research interest, data collection and analysis

6.1  Data Collection 135

Selective addition in the evaluation

Visit or work in further CWSs and related concepts

• Extended understanding of the breadth of CWS models and spaces as well as related concepts • Comparisons to studied case studies • Descriptions of the sociomaterial spaces and experienced atmospheres • Observing the events in the CWS • Self-observation: How do I as a user access the CWS? Emic view

For longer stays field notes, partly photographs N = 95 Of these, stays over longer periods of time in three CWSs and one coliving/coworking space

Selective addition in the Online offer of the CWSs: evaluation website, Facebook page, Facebook group (Sargas), e-mail newsletter (Tabit); Media articles, blog posts about CWSs; Flyers, promotional materials; internal documents of the CWSs

Documents and materials

• Background organisation CWS • Self-understanding and presentation of CWS • External perception of CWS (media, blog posts) • User behaviour in virtual space

Data analysis

Description of sample

Data collection

Research interest

Table 6.1   (continued)

136 6  Methodological Approach

6.1  Data Collection

137

period, such as the website of the CWSs, existing results of internal surveys, media reports, etc. Furthermore, over time I also acquired both experiential and contextual knowledge indirectly by working in other CWSs, visiting CWSs in different locations and attending coworking conferences and barcamps. The following sections present the individual data collection methods.

6.1.1 Photo Interviews with Users: Photo Elicitation To understand and reconstruct the subjective view of the users, semi-structured photo interviews with the coworkers were conducted, whereby the photographs had been produced by the coworkers in advance of the interview. By including photographs, the problem of “aesthetic muteness”8, transience of atmospheres and fluid aesthetic remembering (cf. Biehl-Missal 2011, p. 31), was to be counteracted. Although the interviews were conducted in the premises of the CWSs themselves (usually in a separate room, typically the meeting room, but in the case of Sargas also in the open space and in the garden), only a small section of the CWS was present in the interview situation. Other rooms, situations and associated moods could have been recalled only from memory in a purely word-based interview. By integrating photographs in the interview, the practical awareness of spaces and spatial action and the experience of spaces and atmospheres was to be traced. Specifically, the method of photo elicitation was used, in which photographs are included as visual narrative stimuli in the interview process, with the aim of eliciting different information than would be the case with purely word-based interviews (Harper 2002, p. 13).9 This also made it possible to make a larger section of the organisational lifeworld CWS and the associated spaces and atmospheres relevant to the interviewees more tangible in the interview, provided that moods and atmospheres are not only perceptible through direct presence on site, but also emerge and have an effect on the viewers through images (Biehl-Missal 2011, p. 57). As the term photo elicitation already suggests, the narrative request in the interview is not verbal by the interviewers, but visual through the photo8 Even

though it can be assumed that CWS users with creative activities have a relatively high aesthetic competence (cf. Bender 2013). 9 In contrast to this understanding, in which both researchers and interviewees can be producers of the photographs, Dirksmeier (e.g. 2009, 2013) defines photo elicitation more narrowly as a specific form of photo interview, in which the photographs are generated by the researchers. The method used here, in which the interviewees are also image producers, corresponds to Dirksmeier’s reflexive photography.

138

6  Methodological Approach

graphs, through which narrations, commentaries, reflections or associations are stimulated in the interviewees (Brake 2009, p. 375 f.). Douglas Harper (2002, p. 22 f.) summarises the advantages of the photo elicitation technique as follows: “[P]hoto elicitation may add validity and reliability to a word-based survey […] [A] t the other extreme I believe photo elicitation mines deeper shafts into a different part of human consciousness than do words-alone interviews. It is partly due to how remembering is enlarged by photographs and partly due to the particular quality of the photograph itself.”

Through the photographs, longer and richer narratives can be generated than would be the case with purely word-based interviews (Brake 2009, p. 384). The images support the interviewees in describing also self-evident objects or scenes from everyday life that would not have been in their consciousness in a normal interview or would have seemed too trivial to go into more detail (ibid.). The photos also give the interviewees confidence and facilitate communication during the interview (ibid.). In addition, photos can arouse the interest and curiosity of the interviewees (ibid., p. 385). Since the photographs in the present study were intended to capture the relevance system of the coworkers, it was important that the interviewees themselves were also the producers of the photographs (cf. e.g. Brake 2009; Dirksmeier 2013; Kolb 2008; Warren 2002). The self-created photographs gave the interviewees the opportunity to make the invisible visible (cf. Merleau-Ponty 1986) and to express the experience of the spaces and the associated feelings non-verbally (cf. Warren 2002, p. 233): “[I]magery is as much about image-ination and visualisation as it is about visible representation” (ibid., p. 235, emphases in original). Thus, the images help the interviewees to talk about their own topics and the associated aesthetic experiences in the interview (ibid.). With this approach, not only active participation in the interview was required, but also in advance in the production of the images. Anna Brake (2009, p. 385) refers to this as an approach of activating social research, in which the respondents are more involved in the entire research process (data collection and data analysis). The photos can thus contribute to making the communication between interviewer and interviewee more symmetrical and also to naming surprising aspects that could not have been anticipated by the researchers (ibid.). The interviewees are the experts of their own images (Dirksmeier 2013, p. 90). By talking about the photographs in the interview, a further contextualisation of the photographs is ensured, through which the decisions about the selected topics and motifs are made transparent, which is helpful for the later interpretation of the images (ibid.; Brake 2009,

6.1  Data Collection

139

p. 374 f.; Warren 2002, p. 238 f.). Accordingly, image-text interpretations were also carried out in this study (cf. Sect. 6.3.2). For the present study, the concrete procedure was as follows: After the coworkers agreed to the interview, they received, in addition to the agreement of the interview date, a sheet with the instruction to take photos of the CWS that show how it is for them to work there, following the approach of Warren (2002, 2005). In order to make the constitution of the personal work space accessible for the reconstruction in the context of the analysis, the interviewees were also asked to take a photo of their (current) work place. The assignment was as follows: I would like to know what the coworking space means to you and learn more about your thoughts and feelings that you associate with it. For this, I ask you to take photos of the [name] coworking space that show how it is for you to work here. The photos can show places, people, things, moods, etc.—anything that comes to your mind. At the end, I ask you to take a photo of your work place (if you do not have a fixed work place, then a snapshot of the work place where you are currently working).

The photos could be taken with a provided digital camera or their own smartphone. The task was formulated as openly as possible to allow room for interpretation. No further specifications regarding the choice of motif or number of photos were deliberately made, so that the interviewees could set their own relevancies. This resulted in the implementation that the interviewed users interpreted the task differently. Some used photos that they had already taken of the CWS in the past. An illustrator (Sheldon) drew, according to his profession, digital pictures instead of taking photos. The number of photos also varied from n = 2 (Samantha, Sheldon) to n = 16 (Toni) per interviewed user. However, there were also interviews (with Samir and Steve) that were conducted without photographs due to the spontaneity of their occurrence. In addition, not every coworker was equally open to such an approach, which also prevented some interviews from taking place10. Thus, the pictures had a different significance in the interviews: While the photographs served as important visual narrative-generating stimuli,

10 For

example, conversation partner Sven was noticeably skeptical about the data collection setting, although he was interested in the research project. We agreed to meet for an informal lunch, where I could ask my questions without taking photographs and recording the conversation (however, it was recorded from memory afterwards).

140

6  Methodological Approach

along which the interview was conducted, in some interviews the interview guide was more important. The photos were viewed together on the screen of my laptop11 and the interviewees were encouraged to determine the order and focus of the pictures themselves. Due to this different significance of the photographs and to ensure that all relevant topics were addressed in the interview, talking about the photographs was embedded in an interview guide. The guide consists of the following topic complexes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Mood in the CWS Personal background and getting to the CWS Other workplaces Open part: Talking about the photographs Room for improvement Details on photo of workplace Work: Productivity and disturbances Non-human space Social space Organizational aspects/Participation/Culture Final question Semantic differential: Assessment of the open spaces according to emotional adjectives 13. Sociodemography The first part, which precedes the narration about the photos, consists of three points. At the beginning of the interview, the first question was about the mood at the CWS on the day of the interview and thus the immediate impression of the interviewee, who in most cases was still in the CWS shortly before the interview. At the same time, this question served as an icebreaker question. In order to get to know the interview partner better, a narrative-generating question followed, how it came about that he or she works in the investigated CWS. In addition, it was elicited what experience the interviewee has with CWSs and which other workplaces besides the investigated CWS are relevant for him or her. This was fol-

11 The

advantages of this procedure compared to viewing print photographs were mainly in the immediate availability of the digital photographs. Often, the photos were sent to me shortly before the interview, which would not have allowed the development of the photos.

6.1  Data Collection

141

lowed by the photographs and the talking about them. Depending on the focus in the photo part, this part was followed by further questions for follow-up in relation to the exploration of the CWS spaces. Following the main interview, the interview partners were presented with a Semantic Differential for assessing the perceived container spaces. With its help, each open space should be evaluated according to various opposite feeling adjectives (e.g. quiet—loud, dark—bright, serious playful) on a seven-point scale. Specifically, the semantic differential by Jürgen Hellbrück and Manfred Fischer (1999, p. 101) was used and slightly modified.12 This method allows measuring affective-emotional properties of objects, terms or in this case of interior spaces (see ibid., p. 100). The semantic differential does not aim at the factual, denotative relation to the object of evaluation, but rather captures the associative emotional, i.e. the connotative meanings of the object of evaluation (Flade 2008, p. 71; Hellbrück and Fischer 1999, p. 100). Although the semantic differential provides quantified data that could be further processed, it serves in the present study only as a verbalization aid in the interview and as a substantiation of the results, insofar as the case numbers would be much too small for a statistical evaluation. The interview was concluded by a short questionnaire on relevant sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents. The main part of the interviews (1–11), which was recorded with a dictation device, lasted between about 32 minutes and 1 hour 14 minutes depending on the number of photos and the time the interview partners had. Here, the field co-structured the length or shortness of the interviews. Especially coworkers, who work as members of a start-up or as solo self-employed, found it difficult or impossible to find time for an interview that was estimated to last an hour, which resulted in some cases in shorter interviews being agreed upon or interviews not taking place despite the interest in participating. Also, the flexibility and situationality of self-employed work led to interview appointments being often postponed at short notice—especially in the case study Sargas.

12 In

Tabit, both Classic Office and Creative Space were evaluated by all interview partners; in Sargas, those open spaces were evaluated by the interview partners who also use them.

142

6  Methodological Approach

6.1.2 Interviews with Members of the Operating Team In addition to the user interviews, semi-structured interviews with the staff of the operating team (three operators and two employees) constitute another data corpus. In these interviews, the thematic focus was on learning more about the CWS, its organizational concept and history, as well as the considerations for curating the CWS and the design of the container spaces.13 The guidelines for the interviews with the members of the operating team were geared towards the interviewees and theirrespective roles in the CWS. In three of five interviews (Tabea, Tom and Sarah), photos were also taken of the intervieweesalong which the major part of the interviews was conducted. Finally, the Semantic Differential was used to assess theperceived container spaces. The guideline had the following thematic structure, which was varied according to the duration ofaffiliation and the position of the interviewee in the team: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Mood in the CWS History and self-understanding of the CWS Own role in the CWS [Open part: Talking about the photographs] Design of non-human space Social space Organizational aspects/co-design/culture Final question Semantic differential: Assessment of the open spaces according to emotional adjectives 10. Sociodemography The interviews with the members of the operating team (parts 1–8) lasted between 43 minutes and 1 hour 6 minutes.

13 The

focus of the analysis in the interviews with the members of the operating teams was on their role as representatives of the organization. Although they also work in the CWS themselves (among other things, also in the context of other work tasks as part of a secondary activity) and in the interviews this aspect was also addressed from the user perspective, these statements were not included in the evaluation of the user perspective, as the perspective as a representative of the organization was not completely abandoned.

6.1  Data Collection

143

6.1.3 Participating Observation or Observing Participation Besides the interviews, another important component of the data collection was the exploration of the organizational lifeworld of CWS through participant observation or observing participation. I was observing participantly when I wrote down the observations of the sociomaterial space as well as the actions and interactions in the field. I was participating observantly when I took an emic perspective as a participating researcher or a participating coworker and focused on my own exploration of the CWS as a user; this happened during the field visits in Tabit and Sargas and beyond. Through the participation and the observation, the practices that are fundamentally important for coworking in everyday life should also be uncovered. Participant observation generally involves taking sensory impressions14, exploring phenomena and gaining experience (Hitzler and Gothe 2015, p. 10). Central for this study were the description of the sociomaterial space and, connected to that, the observation of what was happening around me: concretely, the spatial arrangements, furniture, artifacts, light, colors, acoustics, smells, people and their bodies, clothing, postures, actions, verbal and nonverbal communication etc. Through the writing observation within the framework of participant observation, the spaces of CWSs were linguistically explored in their material form and, connected to that, also the objects of material culture, such as technical artifacts, artistic objects or spatial settings (cf. Breidenstein et al. 2013, p. 36). The interest in the user perspective was the reason for not only considering and observing the sociomaterial spaces and the events, but also myself as a researcher observing in the CWS or as a coworker working15 as a source of data, in order to get closer to the subjective appropriation of the spaces and the

14 In

the ethnographic observation itself, the process of spatial perception is also important: Thus, the sensory perception under the condition of the co-presence of the researcher is also central here (Breidenstein et al. 2013, p. 71). In addition to the classical senses (and here especially seeing, hearing, smelling and touching), observation also includes the social sense of the researching person, i.e. “their ability to understand, to focus, to familiarize themselves” (ibid.). 15  Thus, I worked as a coworker in the examined, visited and used CWSs (see below Sect. 6.1.4) also on my own projects, without primarily observing. This way, I could also shed more light on the blind spot of doing laptop work, insofar as the actual work on the laptop and the associated activities and feelings are not or hardly accessible through the observation of other users (see Sect. 6.4).

144

6  Methodological Approach

associated non-verbal, implicit or bodily knowledge from the subject’s perspective. The self-observation was an important element of my observation strategy and thus the adoption of the emic perspective, in order to explore processes of subjective appropriation of spaces on myself as a person autoethnographically. In this respect, my approach was close to the participatory observation of LWE, through which “data of the own subjective experience of the researcher” (Hitzler and Eisewicht 2016, p. 48, emphasis in the original) are generated, but also to the aesthetic field research of Andreas Rauh (2014, 2018), which is also influenced by phenomenological-hermeneutic principles and pays special attention to one’s own perception: “[I]n order to perceive how one is oneself at any place, it [the method] is therefore concerned with allowing open perceptions, recording them and interpreting them towards intersubjectively ascertainable atmospheric qualities of spatial situations” (Rauh 2018, p. 140)16. The self-observation during the observation thus takes into account the capture of the complex phenomenon of atmosphere from the perspective of the perceiving subjects. It enables to put one’s own sensory impressions and feelings into words in the context of experiencing the spaces and atmospheres. Whenever possible, I wrote field notes during my field stays, in order to record my observations and impressions, thoughts and sensations. In the context of self-observation during participation, it was also about recording one’s own experience, to pursue a work activity as a user in the CWS, to spend breaks, to attend events, to get in contact with users etc. Thus, my involvement in the field varied between observing and participating: While in some situations I observed the events around me rather passively participating, I took part actively in the CWS events in other situations, for example, that I cooked as a volunteer for the Sargas Community Dinner or participated as an expert in the planning sessions for the future Tabit-CWS. Observing participation means therefore existential engagement17 in the field of interest (cf. Hitzler

16 Three

core points are central for Rauh’s approach: The notation of all perception, the possibility of memory-protocol supplements and the unity of data collection and evaluation person (ibid., p. 140 f.). The latter does not represent a disadvantage, but rather an advantage, since the field researcher knows the linguistic peculiarities best and is understood as a competent person in relation to the evaluation of the verbalization of the perception of atmospheres (see ibid.). This accepts that distances from the field and the associated alienations of the participant perspective are not as strong as with other ethnographic methods (ibid.). 17 That the observing participation was not limited to the two case studies and my involvement in the extended coworking field was high, becomes clear from the following Sect. 6.1.4.

6.1  Data Collection

145

and Eisewicht 2016), in which one’s own subjectivity is a means to experience and explore the field (Reichertz 2012, para. 5) or as Hitzler and Gothe (2015, p. 11) express it: “Observing participation means: to involve oneself existentially or to let oneself be involved in as many things as possible, to slip into different roles, to do what is customary or what is done by those with whom one has to do, and to observe not only others, but also oneself—while participating as well as while observing. Observing participation means therefore, to go intensively into the social field that is being investigated and—down to linguistic and habitual peculiarities—to try to become as similar as possible to the people with whom one then symptomatically has to do.” (Hitzler and Gothe 2015, p. 11, emphases in the original)

In terms of research practice, observing participation means thus, to try “to become one like those whose ‘view of things’ one (for whatever reason) wants to understand” (Hitzler and Eisewicht 2016, p. 42). I countered the strong involvement in the field and the subjectivity of my observations with conscious distancing and self-reflection in the course of the data analysis, especially since I also shaped the field by my participation, even if I only observed (Breidenstein et al. 2013, p. 73; Przyborski and Wohlrab-Sahr 2014, p. 44). In this respect, it was important to contrast the closeness of the observation during the participation in the field with the distancing from the sensually experienced, in order to explicate and reflect on the sensually experienced (cf. Sect. 6.3). My co-presence in the field was comparatively easy to realize (cf. Baumann 2013, p. 29). As a laptop worker with similar social characteristics as the CWS users, I moved rather inconspicuously in the field, although I never completely shed my role as a researcher and thus my special position in the field and appeared openly with it (cf. Amann and Hirschauer 1997, p. 25 ff.).18 Also, writing the field notes in the CWS was relatively uncomplicated compared to other fields. In everyday work life, I could position myself with my laptop—just like the other coworkers—at a workstation and in the case of participatory observation, write down the field notes directly digitally and thus capture the events in the CWS in real time. The impressions of the observing participation, especially at events, I recorded afterwards in the form of memory protocols. 18 Besides posters and calls in the virtual space, I also actively recruited coworkers as interview partners on site. This was not only done in everyday work, but also at networking events for coworkers. Accordingly, I was also perceived in my researcher role. Coworkers approached me as a researcher if they wanted to participate in an interview or they asked, for example, about the status of my work.

146

6  Methodological Approach

My field stays in Tabit spanned eight months, with focused visits of one month each and varying in duration (from attending a specific event to observing a whole day). In the case of Tabit, I also observed meetings outside the existing CWS with a view to planning the new CWS up to its opening. In Sargas, on the other hand, I was present every weekday for a whole month in the CWS all day long. There I conducted participatory and self-observations whenever I had the opportunity and did not conduct interviews. In addition to the (work) spaces in everyday CWS life, I also visited, if possible, events and other activities of the studied CWSs. I initially scattered my own positionings in the CWSs widely, in order to get to know the places, their container spaces and the events from different perspectives and at different times. While my observations were still quite open at the beginning, they were intensified in the course of the research process by repeating observations at the same place (at the same and different times) and also consciously changing my own positionings (cf. Breidenstein et al. 2013, p. 75 ff.; Scheffer 2002). In this regard, I also varied the length of stay in the individual container spaces. In addition, I also focused my observations on specific topics, places, times and people during the field stay, in order to illuminate and understand facts better (cf. ibid.). During the time in the field, I also collected various materials from and about the studied CWSs, which were included as existing documents in the analysis process. The focus was on the internet presence of the CWSs via their own website as well as the appearance in social media and especially Facebook: Both CWSs have a Facebook page, in the case of Sargas there is also a Facebook group. Other materials are the e-mail newsletter of the CWS Tabit, advertising materials and flyers, internal documents, but also newspaper articles or blog posts about the CWSs.

6.1.4 Deep Involvement in the Field In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter, it was necessary not to limit one’s own view to the two case studies alone, but also to illuminate the broader context. To this end, I visited other CWSs and related concepts with different orientations, in different sizes and at different locations, in order to learn about the range and diversity of the phenomenon of coworking and its variety of concepts. The experiences collected there were also repeatedly used as a comparison foil during the data evaluation. I also looked at thematically related concepts of flexible work spaces or collaborative spaces, such as business centers, fab labs or maker spaces (cf. Sect. 2.2.4). In addition, I encountered in the field also work spaces that called themselves CWSs, but did not correspond to the understanding of CWSs that was worked out in this work. In most cases, these

6.1  Data Collection

147

were work spaces that were not explicitly designed as community spaces and therefore not curated accordingly. During my visits, I participated, if possible, in guided tours (or in the coworking jargon: tours through the CWSs) and had the premises shown to me by staff (usually the community managers or operators), conducted conversations with the CWS staff and sometimes also with coworkers, to learn more about the background of the respective CWS. In addition to the visits I organized myself, I also participated in visits to CWSs and related concepts as part of coworking conferences. My visits were documented, if allowed, this also happened photographically. If a longer stay was possible, I also conducted participatory observations or observing participations here. At the end of my study, I visited 95 CWSs or related concepts at 31 different locations in eleven countries. During the research period, I also worked myself for long periods of time in three CWSs19 as well as for over a month in a coworking and coliving space. I got to know these places very intensively as a participating coworker (also here in the sense of an observing participation). In the former, it was also possible for me to follow the development of the CWSs over a longer period of time. Thus, I acquired a comprehensive experiential knowledge and experienced myself what it means to work as a coworker in such flexible community-oriented workspaces. Another central point in the context of collecting experiential and background knowledge was the attendance of coworking conferences and barcamps, on a national level in Germany and Switzerland as well as on a European level within the framework of the Coworking Europe Conference.20 Through the participation in and the observation of panel discussions, workshops, barcamp sessions and accompanying events, such as evening events or tours through local CWSs, I gained a deeper insight into relevant topics and discourses and could follow general developments around the dynamic object of investigation coworking. At the (un-)conferences, I established and deepened social contacts with CWS operators, researchers and key persons of the coworking scene. Especially within the framework of the barcamp sessions and in the exchange with various actors of the cow-

19 I

worked regularly in two CWSs, and visited one more sporadically. One of these three places, which calls itself a CWS, follows more accurately a flexible office space concept without a curated community. The stay there was a contrasting experience for me in relation to the core elements of coworking. 20 Participation in conferences: Coworking Europe Conference 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2018, Coworking Switzerland: 2014 (regional coworking meeting St. Gallen Lake Constance), 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020, Cowork Germany: 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2020 (online barcamp).

148

6  Methodological Approach

orking scene, I learned which topics and questions concern the practitioners and how they deal with them. In addition, I had the opportunity to follow the foundation and development of the national coworking associations in Switzerland and Germany21. With the aim of bringing together CWS researchers within the framework of the (un-)conferences, I also organized corresponding sessions or accompanying events (here in the role as an observing participant). It should be noted that the various actors, the operators of the CWSs, other users as well as (un-)conference participants always encountered me and my research project with openness and interest, which can be considered as characteristic for the coworking scene. Thus, openness is also one of the coworking values. Only once did I experience that in the context of a CWS visit, me and my research project were initially met with skepticism, as the CWS had already received numerous requests from students who wrote papers on the topic of coworking22. The skepticism could however be cleared up in the conversation and after presenting my project. Over the course of time, I also established more intensive relationships with various persons of the field. Here I saw it as a constant challenge to maintain the right distance to the field of investigation between going native and distancing, which is why the conscious distancing and constant reflection of my role as a field researcher was of particular importance (see Sect. 6.3).

6.2 Case Selection and Overview of the Samples The choice of the CWSs examined within the framework of the operational case studies was deliberate and based on theoretical considerations. For both case studies, an urban context was chosen. For the study, it was important that there are several CWSs in the investigated cities and that potential users can choose between alternative CWSs. This is also the reason why no small-town or rural context was selected for the investigation.23 Thus, two urban centers in Switzerland and Germany were chosen, in which there are respectively a selection of CWSs, although there are significantly more CWSs in the German Salmstadt (as

21 Here

I also actively engaged myself at Coworking Switzerland—again in the role as a CWS researcher. 22 An experience that also other operators confirmed to me in the course of the research process. 23 However, since I have worked in small-town CWSs for longer periods of time, findings characteristic of this context have been included in the evaluation.

6.2  Case Selection and Overview of the Samples

149

a million city) than in the Swiss Tarfstadt. The field stay in the CWS Tabit in Tarfstadt took place mainly over a month in autumn 2014 with further occasional visits until the closure of the CWS in spring 2015. The second case study in the CWS Sargas in Salmstadt was carried out a year later over a month in autumn 2015. The basic criterion for the selection of the operational cases themselves was that they are clearly identifiable as CWSs in terms of characteristics and definition (cf. Sect. 2.2). In addition, both cases were chosen to ensure that they are “successful” CWSs (cf. Welter and Olma 2011, p. 75) that have a corresponding reputation and a good utilization rate. While these criteria were decisive in terms of the decision for the first CWS, Tabit, in the context of the iterative approach, the second CWS, Sargas, was additionally selected to ensure that it differs from the first operational case in terms of various characteristics, such as conceptual orientation, composition of the user group, and spatial concept. However, the Sargas is not to be regarded as a contrasting case in the sense of a maximal contrast to the Tabit. Both CWSs follow, in accordance with the original idea of coworking, a bottom-up approach (cf. Capdevila 2014) and have grown organically. Moreover, they have a similar number of coworking workstations, although in Sargas, due to the public café and the event space on the upper floor, there are significantly more people in a day than in Tabit. The procedure for selecting the two CWSs examined was as follows: First, the urban CWS scene was explored by means of internet research and the internet appearances of the various CWSs (self-description) as well as their media reception (external perception) were examined more closely (with regard to CWS definition, the orientation of the CWSs, size, user group, etc.). While the case selection for the first case study was made on the basis of this available information, I visited pre-selected Salmstadt CWSs in advance of the second case study. The aim was to experience the concrete places and their atmospheres beyond the internet presentations. I conducted conversations with the coworking hosts, had them show me the premises, and stayed in those CWSs that made it to the shortlist for a certain time, to feel for myself how the different places felt. Accordingly, the initial contact differed in both case studies. In Tabit, the first contact was made by e-mail, followed by a personal meeting with the community manager. At this meeting, I presented my project and got to know the CWS better. I was guided through the premises and received some information about the CWS in a first conversation. The decision to study this CWS was made quickly afterwards. In addition, there was the circumstance that it was already known at that time that the CWS had to move to new premises in the near future, which from the research interest point of view offered the possibility of further accompanying the processes

150

6  Methodological Approach

of searching, planning and designing a new CWS. At Sargas, the first contact was made in the context of two preliminary stays in Salmstadt. While I explored the premises myself during the first stay (and also recorded this in the context of field notes), I had the opportunity to have a first conversation with a member of the operating team during the second visit. The contact with the community manager was then made by e-mail and by means of a phone call before the field stay, in which I also received information about the CWS and its background. In both cases, the field access proved to be uncomplicated. The operators were open to the research project from the beginning and supported me in my project during both field stays. In both case studies, the operating team was first informed about the intended study and its approval was obtained—its members were important gatekeepers for access to the users of the CWSs. To inform the coworkers about the study and to find interview partners, different strategies were pursued: In addition to announcing the study at the beginning of both field stays via the online communication channels of both CWSs (Tabit: weekly newsletter, Sargas: Facebook group), the study was also made known analogously via posters and handwritten calls at the meeting places in the CWSs. An important access was also my personal presence in the CWS and the active approach of coworkers whenever the opportunity arose (during breaks, at lunch, at events, etc.). Over time, I also approached coworkers more specifically, with the aim of reaching representatives of different user groups in the interviews. In addition, it also happened that members of the operating team mediated coworkers as interview partners. Initially, the response from the coworkers was rather subdued in both cases, but through the interplay of the different strategies and with the trust building over time (cf. Breidenstein et al. 2013, p. 60) between coworkers and researcher, sufficient interviews could be realized in both CWSs. The selection of the interviewed coworkers was made with appropriate openness and was only limitedly controlled. However, it was ensured that the sample was distributed across various characteristics (space usage behavior, membership duration, age). The following will break down the sample composition for the two operating case studies in more detail.

6.2.1 Sample Tabit In Tabit, a total of fourteen interviews were conducted, of which eleven interviews with users and three interviews with members of the operating team (two with members of the core team from both operating companies and one interview with the community manager of the CWS, who is employed as an intern). Table 6.2 characterizes the Tabit users according to various sociodemographic characteristics:

6.2  Case Selection and Overview of the Samples

151

Table 6.2   Overview of the interviewed users in Tabit

Feature

Value

Number

Gender

Male

9 out of 11

Female

2

30 years and younger

5

31–40 years

4

41–50 years

2

Sector

Information and communication technologies

11

Professional status

Self-employed, freelancer

1

Employed

5

Involved in start-up and leading role, employed with management function

5

Single

8

Married

1

Living separately

2

No

9

Yes

2

Age

Marital status

Children

Highest level of education Vocational training University/Technical College Type of membership at the Employees of the operator company time of the survey Thuban, who are not involved in the operation of the CWS (comparable to Urban-Nomad membership)

Duration of membership

Frequency of use of CWS

2 9 4

Urban Nomad (permanent flexible workplace)

4

Resident (permanent fixed workplace)

2

Separate team office

1

3 months or shorter

2

4–12 months

6

13 months or longer

3

5 times per week or more often

5

2–4 times per week

6 (continued)

152

6  Methodological Approach

Table 6.2   (continued)

Feature

Value

Number

Duration of commute between home and CWS

10 minutes or less

4

11–20 minutes

1

21–30 minutes

1

31 minutes and longer

5

In the results section, the different sources of data are marked accordingly. Quotes from the field notes or interviews contain a corresponding reference at the end of the quote. When presenting the interviews and photographs, first names as well as places, designations, faces or other details that could give clues to the CWSs studied, the interviewed or other persons mentioned in the interviews, as well as statements on other concrete CWSs are anonymized. For better readability, interviewees of Tabit have first names starting with “T”, interviewees of the Sargas have first names with “S”. Findings from the participatory (self-)observations are presented in the first-person perspective. The following is an overview of the different data collection and analysis methods and their significance in the context of this study (cf. Table 6.1). The surveyed coworkers in Tabit are quite homogeneous in terms of some characteristics, which is also typical for the population of users of Tabit. For example, all interviewees work in the ICT sector, but with different focuses (e.g. finance, human resources) and in different functions (not only programmers were interviewed, but also people from marketing or with other cross-sectional functions). The high proportion of men is also striking. The age of the interviewees ranges from 28 to 49 years. In addition, it stands out that the sample mainly consists of start-up participants and employees, but only one freelancer. This is also characteristic for the composition of Tabit users in general: The CWS hosts mainly start-ups and smaller companies. Seven of the interviewed users are members of a start-up or company based in Tabit (one of whom has her own team office with her start-up). Three people work as part of a start-up or company remotely alone in Tabit.

6.2.2 Sample Sargas In the case of Sargas, eleven user interviews were also conducted (one of them with two people) as well as two interviews with members of the operating team (the community manager, who is also part of the core team, and the intern, who

6.3  Data Preparation and Analysis

153

supports the community manager). In addition to the user interviews, an ethnographic interview in the sense of an informal conversation (Breidenstein et al. 2013, p. 80 ff.) was conducted with fixed-desk user Sven, who did not want to do an interview with me. The conversation was not recorded, but was documented afterwards and included in the evaluation. Furthermore, three interviews were conducted with people who occupy an intermediate position between the operating team and the users: Two people are not part of the operating team, but are friends with the operating team. As part of an informal free-coworking model, they perform tasks for the CWS and receive the opportunity to work in the CWS for free (Sean, Steve). One person (Silas) works as a self-employed cook for the Sargas. Due to the special position and the friendly relationships between these people and the members of the operating team, these three interviews were excluded from the core analysis. For the interviewed coworkers of the Sargas, the following socio-demographic characteristics emerge (see Table 6.3). The composition of the users is more heterogeneous in terms of the sectors compared to the Tabit sample. Striking is the high proportion of solo selfemployed, which is characteristic for the basic population of the Sargas. The age of the interviewees ranges from 24 to 40 years. The majority of the interviewed coworkers use the CWS for an indefinite period of time. However, in the case of Sargas, there are also three coworkers who only want to visit the CWS for a limited time, as long as they are in Salmstadt: The couple Scott and Sophie, who are staying in the city for two months, as well as Sheldon, who does not yet know how long he will be in the city, but sees his work vacation as a limited time to devote himself to his own artistic project, until he has to earn money again. Characteristic for both samples are the comparatively small age range and the high level of education of the interviewees, mostly at the level of a technical college or university degree, as well as the low proportion of coworkers with children. With regard to the CWS use, a wide dispersion was aimed at in both samples, which was also achieved to a large extent. However, users who visit the CWSs once or sporadically were harder to reach and could not be convinced to do an interview.

6.3 Data Preparation and Analysis As part of the data collection, a comprehensive data corpus was built, consisting of interview recordings, photographs, field notes and written documents. As part of the data preparation and analysis, further types of data, such as interview

154

6  Methodological Approach

Table 6.3   Overview of the interviewed users in the Sargas

Characteristic

Value

Number

Gender

Male

8 out of 12

Female

4

Age

30 years and younger

7

31–40 years

5

Industry (Multiple assignments possible)

Information and communication technologies

4

Design/Graphic design/Illustration

3

Environment and energy

2

Non Profit/Social

1

Architecture

1

Writing

1

Film

1

Professional status

Self-employed, freelancer

11

Employed

1

Marital status

Single

11

Other

1

Children

No

11

Yes

1

Highest level of educa- University/Technical College tion

12

Type of membership at the time of the survey

none—use of café

2

Part Time (3 days per week)

4

Full Time (flexible workspace)

5

Fixed Desk (fixed workstation)

1

Duration of membership

3 months or shorter

5

4–12 months

4

13 months or longer

3

5 times per week or more often

5

2–4 times per week

6

Less than 2 times per week

1

Frequency of CWS use

Duration of commute 10 minutes or less between home and 11–20 minutes CWS 31 minutes and longer

6 5 1

6.3  Data Preparation and Analysis

155

transcripts and memos24 were added and field notes were partly revised, refined and supplemented if necessary (Breidenstein et al. 2013, Sect.3.4).25 In addition, all the sensory experience and memories that I did not or could not write down were an important source of data for me. This experiential knowledge is significant according to Georg Breidenstein et al. (2013, p. 116) and should be used for the evaluation, whether it is that the own experience can be used to contextualize interview or protocol excerpts or that it helps to identify important topics (ibid.). The transcription of the interview material was done in accordance with the extended transcription system of Thorsten Dresing and Thorsten Pehl (2015), which takes into account not only the content of what was said, but also pauses, comprehension signals, fillers, word or sentence breaks and speaker overlaps (ibid., p. 23). The verbal data material was transcribed verbatim. In this step, personal data that could allow conclusions to be drawn about the interviewed or other persons were also anonymized. While I experienced the time in the field, and especially the stays within the framework of the two case studies, as an intensive experience, sometimes more in the role of a participant observer, sometimes more as an observing participant, I also consciously withdrew from the field for the analysis of the data material. This applies not only to the two case studies, but also to CWSs and the coworking scene in general. Thus, the ethnographic knowledge process involves on the one hand the phase of approaching the field and becoming familiar with the unfamiliar, which is radicalized once again in LWE by the existentially engaged observing participation (Hitzler and Eisewicht 2016, p. 33). On the other hand, the

24 Writing

memos is an important part of the data analysis, to record anomalies in the texts or thoughts, ideas and first hypotheses in relation to the evaluation (cf. in relation to ethnography Breidenstein et al. 2013, p. 162; In relation to QCA Kuckartz 2014, p. 54 f.). Memos have a central role in the grounded theory methodology in relation to theory generation, as Barney G. Glaser (2011, p. 155) makes clear: “Memos are theoretical notes about the data and about the conceptual relationships between categories. Writing theoretical memos is the key phase in the process of theory generation” (ibid.). Although memos are less important in the context of QCA, Kuckartz assigns them the value of “helpful tools” (Kuckartz 2014, p. 55). 25 This was done in the awareness that all data generated in the field and especially those generated by me, do not reflect the (unchangeable) social reality, but are always constructed (cf. Breidenstein et al. 2013, p. 116). This also made it possible to revise and expand recordings (ibid., p. 117).

156

6  Methodological Approach

phase of distancing from the field in the course of data analysis is indispensable (Breidenstein et al. 2013, p. 109). In this context, I already used the time between the two case studies for a first analysis phase, in order to examine the data of the first case study more closely analytically and to elaborate and specify my research questions accordingly. In the last phase of the analysis and writing process, I distanced myself almost completely from the field for a while, by working hardly in CWSs and visiting CWSs only rarely. Insofar as the alienated view in the field itself (Amann and Hirschauer 1997, p. 27 f.) is limited due to one’s own involvement as a participant of the field (cf. Rauh 2018, p. 141), besides the spatial distance from the field, the intellectual distancing from the field experience through the analysis activities (Breidenstein et al. 2013, p. 109) was all the more important. With the alienation of the familiar, the explication and the reflexive inclusion of one’s own prior knowledge (Hitzler and Eisewicht 2016, p. 26) and the self-reflection of one’s own role in the field went along (Przyborski and Wohlrab-Sahr 2014, p. 46). The data analysis also involved relating the different types of data to each other within the framework of triangulation, with the aim that they complement and validate each other in the process of knowledge generation. The challenge for me was how to access the extensive data material. The first step of the analysis process was thus to get an overview of the data and to sort the data, for which I used the program MAXQDA (cf. Breidenstein et al. 2013, p. 112). Also in the course of data evaluation, two methods were intertwined. For the structuring of the data material and the exploration of the manifest meaning content, the content-structuring qualitative content analysis was applied as a reductive, categoryguided method of data analysis (Sect. 6.3.1). For individual photos, interview passages, as well as the combination of images and corresponding interview passages in the photo interviews, in-depth sequential-reconstructive hermeneutic interpretations were performed (Sect. 6.3.2), in order to also work out the deeper meaning content of what was said or depicted. In addition, typologies were formed to systematize container spaces, users and experienced social formations in the CWS (Sect. 6.3.3).

6.3  Data Preparation and Analysis

157

6.3.1 Exploring and Structuring: Qualitative Content Analysis In order too evaluate verbal data, i.e. the interview transcripts, field notes and partly secondary data, such as media articles on the CWSs studied, a contentreductive, structuring approach was pursued, in which the development of a category system was central. The category system is regarded as the core element or “heart” (Schreier 2014, Abs. 4) of the qualitative content analysis (abbreviated as QCA in the following). The aim was to order, reduce and relate the extensive data material to each other, as well as to identify key themes for the in-depth analysis. Specifically, the evaluation of the verbal data material was carried out following the content-structuring qualitative content analysis according to Udo Kuckartz (2014). Characteristic for this evaluation method in general is, according to Schreier (2014, Abs. 8), the following: “The core of the content-structuring approach is to identify, conceptualize and systematically describe selected content aspects on the material—for example, with regard to what is said about certain topics in the context of an interview study. These aspects form at the same time the structure of the category system; the different topics are made explicit as categories of the category system.”

For the present study, a category system was developed that applied to any verbal data material and was constantly modified throughout the evaluation process. This had the advantage of being able to assign and relate the different text types to certain topics. At the same time, in order to do justice to the different text data, separate categories were also created, if this seemed necessary. The QCA was carried out using MAXQDA. The order of the individual analysis steps was, following the iterative research process, circular and not strictly linear, as shown below. The first important evaluation step was the careful reading of the verbal data material in the context of the initiating text work (cf. on this and the following explanations of the paragraph Kuckartz 2014, p. 53 ff.). This step was given special importance in this work with regard to the interpretive-hermeneutic understanding of the text. In this phase, according to Kuckartz (2014, p. 53), it is about becoming familiar with the contents and the linguistic material and understanding the texts. For this purpose, the texts were sequentially read line by line completely and worked through with regard to important sections, central terms, difficult passages, breaks, linguistic peculiarities etc. The aim of the initiating text work is to “develop a first overall understanding of the respective text on the basis

158

6  Methodological Approach

of the research question(s)” (ibid.). Working through the texts is also important for the following step, in order to identify inductively new topics and aspects that are addressed by the interview partners. For the user interviews, a first short case summary was created for each one. After the initiating text work, thematic (main) categories were developed on the data material and taking into account the guideline topics (cf. Kuckartz 2014, p. 79 ff.): On the one hand, deductive main categories were formed in a theoryguided way, if topics of the interview guideline already suggested certain categories. On the other hand, however, there was also a conscious openness with regard to inductive, i.e. categories developed from the empirical data material.26 Thus, Udo Kelle and Susann Kluge (2010, p. 70) emphasize that with a purely deductively developed category system, there is a risk that the relevance settings of the interview partners are obscured by the categories used. Therefore, the main categories, according to the authors, should be “as open as possible” at the beginning, so that they can cover the entire spectrum of relevant phenomena […] “based on the data that can be captured” (ibid., p. 71, emphasis in the original). Similarly, Kuckartz (2014, p. 83 f.) also recommends differentiating the comparatively general main categories in a further step. This approach was also taken as a guideline in the present study. Contrary to a clear separation of the phases “development of thematic main categories” and “inductive determination of subcategories”, as presented by Kuckartz (2014, p. 77 ff.), these two phases of the analysis process merged, i.e. when defining the main categories, dimensions in subcategories were also made on the basis of the empirical material or categories were grouped into overarching main categories if this seemed sensible. In some cases, categories were also elaborated in more detail in the course of the category-based evaluation and the results of the reconstructive interpretations (see the following chapter) were consulted.27 The development of the category system was carried out starting with a part of the transcribed user interviews of the first case study Tabit,

26 The

initiating text work and the development of inductive, “empirically rich” (Kelle and Kluge 2010) categories based on the data can be understood in the sense of open coding of the grounded theory methodology, whereby in-vivo codes play an important role (cf. Mey and Mruck 2011). On the significance of inductive and deductive category formation in qualitative content analysis, see Kuckartz (2014, pp. 59–71). 27 It was also possible, following the grounded theory methodology, that an empirical incident was assigned to several categories (Mey and Mruck 2011, p. 25). Kuckartz (2014, p. 80 f.) also states that in the content-structuring QCA, it can be assumed that several topics can be addressed in one text section (or image section).

6.3  Data Preparation and Analysis

159

on the basis of which the categories were also tested. The elaborated category system was the basis for the next analysis step, namely the coding of the available data material. Here, the texts were (re)worked sequentially and text sections were assigned to corresponding categories. Based on the previous step, the first coding process (“coding the entire material with the main categories”) and the second coding process (“coding the complete material with the differentiated category system”) were summarized according to the phase scheme of Kuckartz (2014, p. 77 ff.) due to the extensive data material.28 Subsequently and with each new text, the category system was revised again and, if necessary, expanded in content, categories differentiated or summarized, and the existing data material checked again in this regard. Table 6.4 shows the category system with the main categories in relation to the user interviews. Finally, with regard to the research questions, a category-based evaluation was carried out along the main categories or key topics (cf. on this and the following explanations of the paragraph Kuckartz 2014, p. 93 ff.). The analysis was descriptive, considering and elaborating on corresponding (sub-)categories and answering the question of what was said about the respective topic (and what was not). For this purpose, all segments of the respective subcategories were read, systematized and interpreted in terms of content. In this phase, if necessary, more indepth interpretations of text passages and/or images were included or this step also prompted to analyze text passages and/or images in depth reconstructive-hermeneutically according to the topic (cf. following chapter). In doing so, connections between the categories were also established. In addition, content-analytical analyses were also carried out for photographs independently of the text material. This was helpful to systematize the topics of the photos or the elements of the images, such as the photographed workplaces. However, the limitation to the “WHAT” would not do justice to the richness of the photos and the peculiarity that explanations were given in the interviews, which is why image-hermeneutic analyses were carried out for the photographs. The initiating text work, the inductive category formation and the categorybased evaluation in the QCA as well as the hermeneutic interpretation of selected interview excerpts and images were given special importance in this study in order to consciously illuminate the blind spots of the QCA, which are critically

28 In

this regard, Kuckartz (2014, p. 88) also concedes that in the case of extensive data material or a well-advanced analysis process, the first work steps can also be abbreviated by not coding the main categories separately and assigning text passages directly to a subcategory.

160

6  Methodological Approach

Table 6.4   Category system user interviews

Main categories

Subcategories

A Motives and benefits for working in the CWS

Structuring/separation of work-life/work environment Social contacts in the CWS (presence of others, new contacts) Negative aspects of working from home (isolation, distraction) Low/acceptable costs/provision of infrastructure (Good/central) location of the CWS Appealing concept

B Own story/background of the interviewee

Getting to the CWS Current situation/activity profile Use of other work locations Prior experience of coworking Previous work locations

C Spaces and their effects: descriptions of Perception of mood in the CWS the container spaces and atmospheres Atmospheric descriptions in general Descriptions of the container spaces and atmospheres Space preferences D Non-human space

Furniture/infrastructure Social meeting points Other symbols/artefacts Space design Light Evaluation of space layout

E Social space

Relationship to other coworkers Relationship to members of the operating team/community managers Common activities and events Interaction with each other/community Conflicts Social interactions Characterizations of the CWS members External persons Communication channels Teamwork

F Placements and spaces

[No subcategories, but direct categorybased evaluation] (continued)

6.3  Data Preparation and Analysis

161

Table 6.4   (continued)

Main categories

Subcategories

G Own work in the CWS

Own work: productivity, disturbances Structuring of the workday/everyday life Description/evaluation of one’s own workplace Favourite places Dealing with the search for flexible workplaces Importance of analogue and virtual work space Retreats

H Organizational space and CWS culture Image CWS: Community vs. Service Provider What makes coworking in the CWS (values, culture) Rules Participation/bringing in ideas Trust/Security Organic growth of the CWS/Bottom-up Lack of structures/uncertainties I What to change?

[No subcategories, but directly categorybased evaluation]

J Further topics

Flexibility/Diversity/Change Comparisons with other CWSs Comparison with other workspaces/forms of working Specifics on types of employment Future CWS and own stay (esp. Tabit) IT-focus, high male ratio (Tabit) Specific organizational model of operator company Thuban (Tabit)

viewed from the perspective of interpretive social research (cf. among others Kruse 2015; Przyborski and Wohlrab-Sahr 2014; Rosenthal 2014). Thus, among others, Jörg Strübing (2013, p. 93) criticizes the QCA for being a “highly simplifying and above all oriented towards the manifest information content of the material” (ibid.) procedure. It is criticized that in the QCA the data material is categorized and thus reordered according to the criteria of the researchers, but this only captures the surface, i.e. the manifest content (Rosenthal 2014, p. 18) and thus the ‘WHAT’ and less the ‘HOW’, i.e. the way or form (Kruse 2015, p. 401).

162

6  Methodological Approach

In contrast, in interpretive social research, such a reconstructive and sequential approach is pursued, in which the temporal structure of the text is included as an essential basis for the interpretation (Rosenthal 2014, p. 18). This gives special importance to the reconstruction of the text structure and the consideration of the embedding of each sequence in the overall shape (ibid.). This makes it possible to uncover the deeper, initially hidden meaning content of texts (ibid.). Thus, as a central concern of interpretive social research, “both the comprehension of the subjectively intended meaning and the reconstruction of the latent meaning and the implicit knowledge of the actors in the social world” (ibid., p. 19) can be formulated.

6.3.2 Detailed Analyses: Hermeneutic Interpretation In order to not only analyze the utterances but also the underlying statements (cf. Kruse 2015, p. 399 f.) and to uncover deeper layers of meaning and significance, this work also gave room for hermeneutic interpretation. In this regard, reconstructive analyses were carried out in the context of the initiating text work as well as in the category-based evaluation in the QCA (cf. Breidenstein et al. 2013, p. 139 ff.). In order to reconstruct the subjective appropriation of the spaces by the users, interview excerpts, photographs as well as the combination of images and corresponding interview passages29 were interpreted in depth and the contained meaning constructions were reconstructed (cf. Hitzler and Eisewicht 2016, p. 60). This was done, if possible, within the framework of interpretation groups, with the aim of improving the quality of the interpretations by multiperspectivity and thereby also alienating one’s own view of the data material (cf. Reichertz 2013).

29 Due

to the abundance of data, a focus was placed on the photo interviews with the coworkers as the main data source, although hermeneutic analyses would also be beneficial for the interviews with members of the operating teams, the field notes as well as for documents from the field or media articles. However, only isolated interpretations could be made here. For the text excerpts, the selection was mainly based on initial sequences and dense passages. The images (and possibly corresponding interview excerpts) were analyzed in the order of their appearance in the interview, but also thematically selected (cf. also Breidenstein et al. (2013, p. 140 f.).

6.3  Data Preparation and Analysis

163

Following the social science or sociology of knowledge hermeneutics, the understanding and thus the “reconstruction of individual and social constructions of meaning” (Kurt and Herbrik 2014, p. 477) was the focus of the evaluation of the text and image material. This social science understanding is a second-order construction in the sense of “reconstruction of the construction of meaning” (Hitzler and Eisewicht 2016, p. 61), i.e. the reconstructions of the everyday constructions of first order (cf. Hitzler and Eberle 2013). In this process, interview excerpts and images were analyzed both separately and in combination—the latter as a specific data material of the photo interviews. With regard to the special quality of photo interviews and the data obtained thereby, Brake (2009, p. 379) states that no specific evaluation methods have been developed for this and that previous studies either rely on existing approaches or completely omit an explanation of the procedure for the evaluation: “If one […] looks for evaluation approaches that have been developed specifically for photo-based interview methods and that take into account that social science data are also produced by their specific methodological access (here via photographs as narrative-generating input), one is surprised to encounter a largely empty space.” (Brake 2009, p. 379)

For the present analysis, more importance was attached to the photos than merely being narrative-generating stimuli for the interviews. From the realization that the photos cannot stand alone in the analysis, as they may convey a different message than the one presented in the interview, the contextualizing interview excerpts as well as the photographs were given significance. In terms of the sequence, the photographs were first evaluated for themselves and the statements from the interview belonging to the photo were added and interpreted in a further step. The image interpretation was based on the procedure of aestheticological image hermeneutics (cf. Bosch and Mautz 2012, p. 2 ff. for the following explanations of the paragraph). The choice was made because it takes into account the specific nature of images, or as Aida Bosch and Christoph Mautz put it, the “pictorial in the image” (ibid., p. 2): Thus, images (1) are not temporally structured, but their elements have a simultaneity and (2) images also contain implicit, non-linguistic forms of knowledge (bodily, knowledge, aesthetic conventions, non-verbal communication, etc.)—and thus precisely that knowledge that is also activated when experiencing atmospheres. Bosch and Mautz also emphasize in this regard that it is important, within the framework of image hermeneutics, to take into account the subjectivity of the interpreters as an instrument, in order to

164

6  Methodological Approach

include these non-linguistic knowledge bases.30 Fundamental for the evaluation process of image hermeneutics is the distinction made by Roland Barthes (2009) in two image qualities: the punctum and the studium. Similar to spatial atmospheres, which express the immediate external effect of spatial arrangements, images have an immediate radiance, which is captured in the punctum. While the studium means the systematic recording of the image by the viewers, the punctum aims at the intention that does not come from the viewer, but from the image: “The effect of the punctum is quick and subtle—the image corresponds with inner images of the viewer and enters into a connection with them. The punctum always trumps the studium, as it holds a different intensity of sensory impression. This punctum results from an excess of meaning of the image, from a pictorial core that can only be translated into words to a limited extent.” (Bosch and Mautz 2012, p. 3)

The first phase of the hermeneutic image analysis takes into account the punctum and involves its notation by each member of the interpretation group, by writing down the perceptions, associations or sensations that the image triggers for oneself (cf. for this and the following explanations of the paragraph Bosch and Mautz 2012, p. 6 ff.). In this way, the punctum is made explicit and accessible for the interpretation, by being drawn upon again at the end of the analysis and compared with the studium. The subsequent steps of the image analysis are dedicated to the studium and thus to the “slowed-down seeing” (ibid., p. 6) and follow the art-historical interpretation of the art historian Erwin Panofsky (2006). Here, the elements of the image, its design, genre and symbolism are described in detail, intentional image contents are uncovered and interactions in the image are analyzed, in order to arrive at a comprehensive interpretation of the image (for the exact procedure see Bosch and Mautz 2012). In the implementation, however, some research-practical shortcuts were necessary due to the limited framework in which group interpretations could be carried out.31 In the context of the connection between text and image, a text interpretation of the corresponding interview

30 Although the researchers, according to Bosch and Mautz (2012, p. 5 f.), must also be aware that the non-linguistic knowledge can never be completely translated into language and blind spots remain. 31 The slowed-down seeing within the studium can easily take “hours and hours” (Bosch and Mautz 2012, p. 6) and fill several interpretation sessions (ibid.). Therefore, the image interpretation was also partly shortened and the steps of the Pre-iconographic and Iconographic description as well as the Iconographic and Iconological interpretation were combined.

6.3  Data Preparation and Analysis

165

excerpt was carried out after the image interpretation and this was related to the image interpretation, which could lead to reinterpretations of the image meaning. The following explanations illustrate the procedure for text interpretation, which was carried out independently of the image interpretation for selected text passages or after the image interpretation for the corresponding interview passage. Based on the hermeneutic circle32, individual text passages were examined sequentially and the sense constructions contained therein were reconstructed. The hermeneutic interpretation of the text data was carried out comparatively openly following the principles of sequence analysis: (1) sequentiality, (2) slowing down and (3) (text-)immanence (Breidenstein et al. 2013, p. 151; for the concrete procedure of sequence analysis, see e.g. Kurt and Herbrik 2014). The core of the procedure lies in opening up the text sequentially word by word, line by line, finding the possible, conceivable readings and using the further text to corroborate or reject hypotheses formed on the text. It was also important here to put back context or prior knowledge in order to bring an appropriate openness to the text in terms of possible interpretations. In this regard, Hitzler and Eisewicht (2016, p. 61) state: “The basic attitude of hermeneutic interpreters consists mainly in temporarily suspending brought-along knowledge and pragmatic understanding, formulating falsifiable hypotheses, being maximally skeptical towards them and explicating how or why one thinks one understands what one thinks one understands” (emphasis in the original). In the context of the group interpretations, I consciously held back as an expert of the field in this respect. At the same time, however, it was very helpful to have the corresponding practical knowledge of the field (cf. ibid., p. 62) and to be able to draw on context knowledge afterwards in order to corroborate readings or answer open questions. The detailed analyses are incorporated into the presentation of results again and again.33

32 The

figure of thought of the hermeneutic circle can be summarized as follows according to Strübing (2013): “Just as the individual can only be understood in the context of the whole, so the meaning of the whole can only be derived from the meaning of the individual” (Strübing 2013, p. 21). A single text sequence thus always refers to the overall meaning of the text as well. 33 For example, the interview with Sargas user Sandro is used repeatedly to illustrate the subjective exploration of the CWS. The interview with Tabit user Tristan, on the other hand, is of interest as a contrast interview, insofar as he did not choose the Tabit as his workplace himself and his experience of the CWS and its atmospheres is particularly interesting in this respect.

166

6  Methodological Approach

6.3.3 Typification The formation of types was not the primary goal of the analysis (which is why a type-forming content analysis (cf. Kuckartz 2014, p. 124 ff.) was not aimed for from the beginning), but the empirically grounded typologies are an important result of the analysis. Typification was used as a generalization strategy (cf. Kuckartz 2006) to reduce the complexity of the data material by recognizing patterns and to order it.34 The typology was used to group, firstly, the open spaces, secondly, the users and their attitudes and spatial actions, and thirdly, the subjective view of the users on the experienced forms of social formations according to common characteristics. With regard to the first point, it turned out in the course of the analysis of the spaces and atmospheres that it was necessary to systematize and group the different spatial arrangements of CWSs according to similar features in order to make them accessible to further analysis. Concerning the second aspect, the formation of personal types appeared sensible in the evaluation of the user perspective in order to work out typical patterns in relation to the subjective appropriation of the CWSs as spaces of work or community (cf. Breidenstein et al. 2013, p. 152 ff.). With regard to the third point, it proved to be revealing to form a typology of the subjectively experienced social formations in relation to the subject’s view of the CWS. The core of the typology was to group the elements (in this case the open spaces as CWS container spaces, the users or the experienced social formations) into groups based on similar characteristics (cf. Kuckartz 2014, p. 118 for this and the following statements of the paragraph). The elements within a type should be as homogeneous as possible and as heterogeneous as possible to elements of other types. The elements were thus grouped into similar patterns or groups, which in turn showed clear differences to other patterns or groups. The typology was always a result of case contrasting and comparing. These are empirically guided natural typologies, which were formed inductively from the empirical data (Kuckartz 2006, p. 4052, 2014, p. 122). In this respect, one can speak of polythetic types, which means that the cases belonging

34 This

way, characteristics and relationships between characteristics that constitute the field and that would have been less in focus without the typification were highlighted. For example, the importance of the separation or mixing of work and non-work for the users in relation to the exploration of the CWSs as workspaces and community spaces as well as for the constitution of the spaces themselves is central.

6.4  Critical Reflection on the Research Design

167

to a type are particularly similar, but not identical, with regard to the features of the feature space (ibid.): “Polythetic types are not pure types in the sense that all persons belonging to a type have exactly the same characteristics. They usually show variance, i.e. the assignment of persons to types is only done with a certain probability, i.e. some persons agree more, some less with the pattern of the type.” (Kuckartz 2006, p. 4052)

While the distinction of the open spaces into spaces for concentrated mental work and spaces for interaction as well as the social formations of CWSs emerged and proved plausible in the analysis process, the formation of the user types focused on case summaries on certain features and systematically grouped them (cf. the described procedure of Kuckartz 2014, p. 122 ff.). For Chap. 10 three, in relation to Chap. 11 two user types were formed, which differ in terms of the appropriation of work spaces or the subjective importance of the CWS community. Concerning the subjectively experienced social formations (Chap. 12), three types were formed. The characterization of the formed types is done by the construction of model cases “from the overview and the montage of the best suited text segments” (Kuckartz 2014, p. 130). After having discussed the different methods of data collection and analysis, the following section critically reflects on the methodological approach.

6.4 Critical Reflection on the Research Design Some challenges of this study have already been addressed in relation to the methodological approach. For example, the problem of capturing the experience of atmospheres and the exploration of spaces methodologically. The decision for a specific methodological approach also implies the decision against other methods, such as the use of videos for data collection (cf. Pink et al. 2015), or the creation of mental maps to capture the experienced space (cf. Edinger 2015; Petendra 2015). Further problems that have already been mentioned were the own involvement in the field (which was intended, but at the same time also entails the risk of “going native”) as well as the considerable amount of data material and the handling of it. In the following, I would like to address further challenges. Here, especially those should be mentioned that are related to the user interviews and here especially to the use of photographs, as well as those that result from the peculiarity of observing laptop work.

168

6  Methodological Approach

The first point that was kept in mind when interpreting the results relates to an insight that affects the user interviews in general: In the hermeneutic analysis of the interviews, it was repeatedly noticed that not only the members of the operating teams, but also some users adopted a very positive, even advertising attitude towards the CWS. This is partly due to the interview situation, which placed the importance of the CWS for the users at the center and thus possibly addressed corresponding expectations. On the other hand, this shows the high identification of the users with the CWS, which is based on the fact that the workplace was chosen by themselves and thus the fit between user and CWS is high. A second point that concerns the operationalization specifically is the methodological access to the exploration of the CWS spaces in the user interviews, which was done indirectly via the photographs and self-reports. This can lead to discrepancies between the actual behavior and the narrated behavior. For both challenges, the addition of the observation data within the framework of triangulation was helpful. With regard to the sample, it has already been noted that users who were present once or very sporadically were difficult to reach within the recruitment process. It would also have been interesting to have ex-users in the sample or people who had the examined CWSs in their shortlist when looking for a suitable workplace, but then decided for another CWS as their workplace. However, such groups of people were not reached due to the chosen approach. Here, the interviews with Tristan (who did not choose his workplace in the Tabit voluntarily) and Samir (who decided to leave Sargas after 3.5 years of membership and instead worked in the home office of the new apartment) are particularly interesting. But also with the concrete data collection method of the photo interviews, not only opportunities, but also limitations are associated. Such a procedure not only enables, but also requires the active participation of the interviewees (cf. Brake 2009, p. 385). As Nicoline J. Petersen and Sille Østergaard (2003, p. 5) note, there are interview partners who can respond better to the visual stimuli than others. This is also reflected in this study. In addition to the already mentioned skepticism of some users regarding the data collection method of the photo interview, further difficulties or limitations became apparent during the field phase and the image analysis: (1) In the interviews, sometimes the photos were forgotten to be taken beforehand or the pictures were sent to me at short notice, so that I then looked at them for the first time together with the interviewee during the interview. (2) Photo interviews are ethically even more critical to evaluate than conventional word-based methods, as Warren (2002, p. 240) puts it succinctly: “[U]

6.4  Critical Reflection on the Research Design

169

sing a camera and making photographic representations of people, things, places and events makes ethical issues of anonymity, privacy, ownership and even copyright far more ‘visible’ than is often the case with ‘word-based’ research.” From a data protection perspective, there are challenges regarding the anonymization of the photos taken in the context of the photo interviews (Brake 2009, p. 384).35 The problem regarding privacy and skepticism about data protection could also be possible explanations for why there are interviewees who have hardly photographed other people, or users who have declined to participate in the study because of the photo task. (3) Another striking feature in this context was that the photo shots of some users are (almost) devoid of people, although they later associated social aspects with them in the interview. Through the interpretation of the photographs and the corresponding interview excerpts, it became clear that the photos in these cases have a symbolic character for what is told in the interview. (4) In the course of the image analysis, it was also worked out that not all photos were taken spontaneously. Just as there are photos that seem very staged and their elements deliberately arranged. This was taken into account for the further interpretation. (5) In the evaluation of the photographs and the corresponding interview passages, it also became apparent that the message in relation to the intention to take a photo does not have to match the message conveyed by the photo. For example, if a space appears dark and anonymous in the photo, it can be presented as cozy and personal in the interview. This is partly due to the fact that the interviewees are laypeople in the field of photography and intended subjects cannot be captured accordingly, but also, for example, to the problem described above that the interviewees do not want to photograph other people and the photos then have more of a symbolic character. In relation to the last three points, a contextualization of the photograph using the corresponding interview passages to explain the photos was of particular importance (see Dirksmeier 2013). A further challenge was finally the blind spot of the

35 Accordingly,

in this book, images are used with caution, whereby permission to use the photographs was obtained through the agreement to participate in the interview. Faces of persons and indications of their identity or of places were made unrecognizable.

170

6  Methodological Approach

image analysis, that the non-verbal and implicit cannot be completely translated into language (see Bosch and Mautz 2012, p. 5). Within the framework of participatory observation of the events, there were also limitations of what could be observed: For example, the work itself (especially the work with the laptop)—concretely the mental thinking work, the interaction between user and laptop and the action in the virtual space—was, if at all, only limitedly observable with the approach chosen here. For me as an observer, it remained mostly a black box, what exactly the users do when working on their own on the laptop in the virtual space. I could only observe how people demonstrate that they work (cf. also the result Sect. 8.1). For the capture of the concrete work practices of digital workers, other methods would have had to be applied, such as accompanying coworkers or video observation, or my self-observation would have had to focus more on this. However, since I was not interested in the concrete work practices of coworkers, no emphasis was placed on this. Finally, it should be emphasized once again that the data collected in the context of self-observation emphasize the subject perspective of the researcher, in order to gain access to emotional states and experienced atmospheres. In this regard, the question arises whether the descriptions reflect “the encompassing atmosphere” or personal moods (cf. Rauh 2018, p. 137). A comprehensive hermeneutic analysis of the field notes could not be carried out for research-practical reasons. Being aware that the syntheses of (relational) space and the associated atmospheres are subjectively different—depending on one’s own mood, positioning and habitus—the field notes were not considered as the main, but as a supplementary data source within the framework of triangulation.

Part III Results of the Empirical Study

7

Case Portraits of the Examined Coworking Spaces

In this chapter, the CWSs examined and their spatial arrangements are now presented in more detail. First, a brief overview of their genesis, the organizational concept, and the service and event offerings is given for both CWSs, and the composition of the users is discussed. For this purpose, I use information from the interviews with the members of the operating teams, field notes, and existing documents, such as flyers or the websites of the examined CWSs. The focus then lies on the spatial organization of the two CWSs and related descriptions of the sociomaterial space of the different open spaces, whose data basis are the field notes. In addition, it is illuminated how the users of the CWSs describe their experience of the container spaces in the interviews.

7.1 Case Portrait Tabit “Tabit Tarfstadt is a coworking and event space where startups, hackers, onliners and creators create tomorrow’s solutions by collaborating interdisciplinary.” (Tabit 2015)

7.1.1 Background Tabit is a CWS focused on coworking in Tarfstadt, located in an office building in an urban environment with a wide range of restaurants and cafes. The CWS was founded in spring 2013 by an IT and a graphic company. The two founding companies had previously shared an office space in the premises of the later Classic Office together with other start-ups. With the founding of the CWS, the shared © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 A. Bernhardt, Coworking Atmospheres, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41193-0_7

173

174

7  Case Portraits of the Examined Coworking Spaces

office was to be opened and institutionalized to the outside. By renting additional premises of the later Creative Space in the same building, the CWS was “LEAN started” (interview Tobias, para. 151) and then “organically grown” (interview Tabea, para. 5). At the time of the study, the CWS had existed for almost 1.5 years, although it is already clear that the CWS will only remain at the existing location for a limited time, as the building is to be renovated and converted. The operators of Tabit are already pursuing plans for a new, larger coworking project together with another Tarfstadt CWS provider at a new location. Tabit was finally closed in spring 2015, two years after its opening, in the form that existed until then at the old location. Although the place no longer exists today, the following presentation of the case study is in the present tense. Tabit is organizationally affiliated to the IT company Thuban, although the CWS is not profit-oriented. Thuban itself is a company with about 25 employees, which is “VERY democratically run” (interview Tobias, para. 25), so that major decisions that affect the CWS are supported by all Thuban employees. The second operating company is the graphic company Tiaki, which is much smaller with three employees. Various people from both operating companies are involved in the organization of Tabit, although the division of tasks is not strongly formalized to the outside. However, the community management is clearly regulated: For this purpose, an intern with 80 percent of the position is employed, who is replaced by a permanent employee of Thuban on his/her free day. Already the original naming of the CWS refers to community and collaboration. Also, the self-description on the CWS website emphasizes the interdisciplinary cooperation between the coworkers, which is supposed to lead to innovations (cf. Tabit 2015). The offer of coworking memberships includes, besides day passes, two so-called “start-up packages” for part-time use of the CWS for two or three days a week, respectively. The names of these packages are based on the idea that people who visit the CWS are (still) in a conventional part-time employment relationship and work on building their own start-up on the side. Thus, the first of the start-up packages reads on the website: “Still working 60% for ‘the man’? Come twice a week and work on your future product!” (Tabit 2015). In addition, there are full-time memberships for flexible (Urban Nomad) as well as for fixed workstations (Resident). For these, there is the possibility to acquire a key and thus get 24-h access to the CWS. Moreover, the coworkers

1 The

names of all interview partners have been anonymized (see Chap. 6). Interview partners of Tabit have first names starting with “T” and interview partners of Sargas have first names starting with “S”.

7.1  Case Portrait Tabit

175

with full-time memberships can book the use of the mailbox and the presence of their company logo or name in the entrance area. For all memberships, a certain number of hours for using the meeting rooms is included—additional hours are charged extra. The Creative Space can also be booked by coworkers for events. In addition, the Tabit Creative Space and the meeting rooms in the Classic Office are also rented to external parties for holding meetings, events and workshops. The event program at Tabit includes CWS-internal events such as breakfasts, aperitifs or after-work parties, where networking and exchange among the coworkers are in the foreground. These events are usually organized by the operating team. In addition, there are regular events from the ICT sector at Tabit, which are organized externally, but also by the IT operating company Thuban. However, there are also events with thematic focuses and formats far away from the ICT world, such as book presentations or topics related to coworking and new forms of work. A new format introduced by the operators during the field stay and open to outsiders are Lightning Talks, where coworkers as well as external people give short presentations about their work, specific projects or products or services, which are then discussed. Another event format that is introduced in the course of the planning of the new CWS are the Co-Creation Workshops, in which members of the operating team, coworkers, experts from various fields and interested parties are involved. Also, various exchange and information events on the new Tabit are held by the future operators, which are open to both coworkers and external people. In principle, Tabit keeps its user group open (cf. interview Tobias, para. 59 f., cf. for this and the following statements of the paragraph Bernhardt 2017, p. 55). However, the self-description on the website already points to a focus of the CWS on “startups, hackers, onliners and creators” (Tabit 2015) and, as already became clear, the memberships are also designed to appeal especially to startups. In addition, the CWS has gained a certain reputation in the scene through the ICT events at Tabit. Accordingly, the proportion of coworkers who work in this area, as well as the proportion of start-up employees, is comparatively high. Also, significantly more men than women work at Tabit (cf. also sample description Sect. 6.2.1). Spread over two floors, which can be reached via separate entrances, the CWS comprises more than fifty places. On the ground floor there is the Creative Space with flexible workstations, on the first floor the Classic Office can be found, where both flexible and fixed workstations are offered. In addition, there are three meeting rooms of different sizes as well as separate team offices.

176

7  Case Portraits of the Examined Coworking Spaces

Fig. 7.1   Section of Tabit Classic Office. (Photo: Timo)

7.1.2 Spaces and Experiences2 As the interviews with the operators show, it was important to them in the conception of the CWS that the spaces are designed for different groups of users— co-workers as well as external persons—and that they are cozy and personal as well as functional and representative. Thus, operator Tabea explains: “[T]he SETTING must be designed in such a way that it (1) has a personal character, but ALSO can be transferable to other people. (I: Mhm.) So you know, it’s a PLACE where a lot of PEOPLE access. And uh it has to, (1) it has to be very FUNCTIONAL ALSO besides the fact that it can look NICE” (interview Tabea, para. 70). The Classic Office is the original premises of the shared office, which were pragmatically furnished. In contrast, the spatial arrangement of the Creative Space as part of the CWS was more deliberately conceived by the operators and its atmospheric quality staged to meet the aesthetic demands of the mobile laptop workers, as operator Tobias explains: “Our people have worked everywhere,

2 The

following remarks on the Classic Office and Creative Space as well as aspects of Sects. 8.2 and 10.4 were published in Bernhardt (2017), where the case study Tabit was examined in more detail with regard to CWSs as aestheticized workspaces. Revised from Aestheticization of Work. Empirical Cultural Analyses of Cognitive Capitalism edited by O. Sutter and V. Flor with kind permission of Waxmann Verlag GmbH.

7.1  Case Portrait Tabit

177

they have often worked in cafes, because they like that. This classic office environment is boring for everyone” (interview Tobias, para. 91). In designing the Open Space and choosing the artifacts, the operators deliberately drew on retro style and the characteristics of a café to create a “cozy space” (interview Tobias, para. 82) with a cozy, warm atmosphere (cf. interview Tabea, para. 82). The design of the two Open Spaces and their reception by the coworkers will be discussed in more detail below.

7.1.2.1 Classic Office The Classic Office (see Fig. 7.1) comprises two open spaces that are connected by a door that is usually open and that accommodate almost thirty workstations in total. In the rear container space, there are mainly fixed desks that have been rented by start-ups. The daily composition of the users is comparatively stable here. The front open space consists mostly of flex desks, which are marked with stickers as such and equipped with external screens. Here, the composition of the people changes more from day to day. Also, there are not only teams here, but also individuals. While the flexible workstations appear mostly anonymous when not in use, the fixed workstations have been more personalized by their users. Both rooms of the Classic Office have been designed similarly. They have large desks (two of which are height-adjustable) with uniform office chairs, simple shelves and a plain sofa with a coffee table each. The tables are arranged in groups of two to six tables each. In the rear open space, there is also a kitchenette, which is equipped with a capsule coffee machine, a kettle, a sink and a dishwasher, among other things. A meeting room is attached to each of the open spaces via transparent glass walls. The design of these meeting rooms matches that of the open spaces. A third, simpler and windowless meeting room is located in the corridor to the Classic Office. The furnishing of the Classic Office is simple, functional and ergonomic, there is space between the individual objects. The wide window front makes the rooms bright. The white of the walls is repeatedly broken by posters, especially in the rear container space, which is more personalized by the users. In the front open space, a large golden pictogram catches the eye, which is attached to one wall side. The color scheme otherwise appears rather restrained: Besides a few black, gray and a few colored elements, the color white also dominates here. Overall, the design is reduced and sober. There are no plants in the rooms. The spatial arrangement is mainly subject to functional design principles combined with a simple design. In accordance with the name Classic Office, the room conveys a conventional office aesthetic with the practical design and the ergo-

178

7  Case Portraits of the Examined Coworking Spaces

nomic interior, which is, however, loosened up at some points, for example by a cardboard cutout figure or the walls decorated with posters. The aesthetic of a conventional office also corresponds to the activities: The predominant work mode here is quiet, concentrated and focused activity on the laptop. Accordingly, the soundscape is characteristic of that of a conventional office (including keyboard sounds, clearing one’s throat, footsteps, noises from the stairwell, but also conversations, phone calls, noises from the coffee machine or the kettle). Although it does happen that colleagues talk to each other at the workplace or take calls at the desk, this happens less frequently compared to the Creative Space. Communication in the Classic Office mainly takes place in the meeting rooms, where team meetings or meetings with customers are held. These rooms also serve as retreats for the coworkers, for example to make a confidential phone call or to work even more focused and without any distraction for themselves. In the Classic Office, work is clearly at the center. The two sofas and the kitchen fit into the room image. Compared to the Creative Space, whose spatial ambiance and artifacts invite much more to break activities, they have less importance as break places for the coworkers. Regarding the spaces and their design, the following description by coworker Tamara is characteristic: “The room, it is uh WHITE, BIG, uh OPEN, also BRIGHT. THERE is more like a little […] office style” (interview Tamara, line 83). The users repeatedly make references to the traditional office with expressions like “office-like” (among others, interview Tanja, line 33) or “normal” (interview Troy, line 73). They emphasize mainly instrumental aspects, whereby equipment and furnishings are mostly rated as “comfortable” (among others, interview Toni, line 36) or “good” (among others, interview Thomas, line 161). The aesthetic judgment of the coworkers, on the other hand, is restrained. For example, user Troy says: “UP HERE it is then uh (1) rather (1) so STERILE and, yes, not so much on design or so (1) (?looked at), but it, i’'s okay” (interview Troy, lines 138 ff.). The atmosphere of the Classic Office is characterized as “quiet” (among others, interview Timo, line 54), “focused” (interview Troy, line 55), “professional” (interview Toni, line 15) or “serious” (interview Thorsten, line 77)—attributes that correspond well with the atmosphere in a classic office. Accordingly, here, as Theo puts it, are “the well-behaved working people” (interview Theo, line 202). Nevertheless, the atmosphere of the Classic Office is relaxed, as coworker Toni notes: “Now it looks very professional here. But not exaggerated. I think it’s just right. It shouldn’t be too sterile either, then it’s not good either. But here it fits” (interview Toni, line 79).

7.1  Case Portrait Tabit

179

Fig. 7.2   Section of Tabit Creative Space. (Photo: Tanja)

7.1.2.2 Creative Space The Creative Space (see Fig. 7.2) is a former shop or café with large shop windows, which is divided into two areas. In the back part there is a large white table with plastic shell chairs, a kitchen with simple furniture and storage shelves, among others a sink, a professional barista coffee machine, and refrigerators with a selection of alternative refreshment drinks such as organic or mate lemonades and the possibility to store own food. With the exception of the coffee machine, the furnishings look cheap and simple. In the front part of the Creative Space there is the work area with various, partly arranged in rows, wooden tables with wooden chairs in the 1970s style, a vintage sofa corner, a football table, a small counter with bar stools, a leather armchair with side stool and retro swivel chairs with small glass tables. The furniture of the front area looks high-quality and seems to come from different decades of the last century. Even if the furniture does not seem to match at first glance, the combination looks thoughtful and balanced to me. The floor is in dark brown wood look, the walls are partly colored. In addition to white, warm natural colors (brown, red, green) dominate the room, which harmonize with each other. Chandeliers and a striking designer lamp hang from the ceiling. The contrast to the modern lamp spots recessed in the ceiling is only noticeable at second glance. There are also two plants in the Creative Space. The Creative Space is (with the exception of the rear kitchen area) an aestheticized work space with a room design that is reminiscent of a café or living room.

180

7  Case Portraits of the Examined Coworking Spaces

Accordingly, artifacts are used here that do not directly refer to work. The name Creative Space seems to already promise the effect of the room: Here, the senses are stimulated and creative processes are stimulated. In total, the Creative Space accommodates about 25 seats that can be used flexibly. Here, groups as well as individuals work. It is striking that a large part of the users are employees of the operating company Thuban. In addition, the community manager Tom has his fixed place at the large table in the back part. The café atmosphere of the Creative Space is reflected in the activities. A focus of the work activities lies on interaction: Here, team meetings, meetings with external people or Skype calls with physically absent people are held. Likewise, the break activities and the associated artifacts are oriented towards exchange. For example, there is a football table where people come into contact while playing together. At the barista coffee machine, where the coworkers prepare their (free) coffee themselves, exchange also takes place. Another place for conversations is the large table in the back kitchen area, where CWS members meet for lunch to eat together. The Creative Space is also the place where Tabit-internal and external events take place. But even though the Creative Space resembles a café more than an office, it is a work space. While some coworkers exchange ideas in the work context (with present and absent people), other users work quietly for themselves. In addition to digital work, activities without a laptop such as reading, conceptual work or writing are also pursued here. These are mainly activities in which—in line with the name of this work space—creativity plays an important role. In good weather, the space of the Creative Space is extended to the sidewalk in front of Tabit, although the sidewalk does not directly belong to the CWS, but is part of the public space: Then coworkers move tables and chairs from the Creative Space to the sidewalk to work there, spend their lunch break or hold meetings. In this way, they temporarily appropriate the outdoor space in front of the Creative Space and transform it into a work space for meetings, activities on the laptop or a space for the joint lunch break. The design of the Creative Space is described by the interviewed users with attributes such as “alternative” (interview Theo, para. 231), “rustic-chic” (interview Troy, para. 142) or “Freestyle” (interview Thorsten, para. 78). The comparison with a café or living room is also picked up by the coworkers, as by user Tanja, who comments on a photo of the Creative Space (see Fig. 7.2): “[D] ownstairs is, is just like (1) YES, like, like the living room of someone, or, where, where you sit. (1) YES, and I also think, that is just a little bit to show, that it can be cozy or IS” (interview Tanja, para. 33). Again and again, the material wood is highlighted in connection with the warm colors. The furniture is attributed a

7.1  Case Portrait Tabit

181

special style, such as the sofa corner, which has charm far away from the styled designer furniture and fits to Tabit, as user Timo explains: “I find the style very funny, because it is a little bit peculiar and yet very characteristic for Tabit, that it is special and not just styled and everything designer furniture, but it conveys for me very nicely the atmosphere of Tabit, that we have there. That is, it should be cozy and pleasant people and a pleasant atmosphere.” (interview Timo, para. 50)

Furthermore, the atmosphere of the Creative Space is characterized by the interview partners with attributes such as “inviting” (interview Tamara, para. 79), “lively” (interview Tarek, para. 124), “relaxed” (interview Tamara, para. 77/ interview Tanja, para. 84), “creative” (interview Thomas, para. 234) or “open” (interview Till, para. 43). The furniture of the work area is notconventional office equipment, which is partly perceived as uncomfortable (especially the wooden chairs and tables), but partly also as comfortable (especially the leather armchair). Ergonomics is not the focus here either. The Creative Space is an interaction-oriented space, where it is “definitely cool to sit and do something”, as Toni expresses it. The Creative Space is perceived predominantly positively by the interviewed coworkers, with the exception of user Tristan, who is the only one in the sample who does not work voluntarily in the CWS and who also comparatively critically assesses the Classic Office in this respect. He stylizes the Creative Space as a non-place, which does not meet his atmospheric demands for beautiful furniture and good air at all: “DOWN [note AB: Creative Space] it is unbearable. (1) There the AIR is usually EVEN worse [note AB: than that of the Classic Office]. (I: Mhm.) (1) And I think the FURNITURE is HORRIBLY ugly. (I: Mhm.) Uh so I can’t stand that, that’s uh/ (1) D/ there b/ THERE I have, I’m much too, (1) uh that’s just not my thing at all” (interview Tristan, para. 69). For him, the Creative Space is merely a place to get drinks and is not an option as a work or break place.

7.1.2.3 Overall Assessment of Tabit and its Spaces The contrastive symbolic-material design of the non-human space and the associated atmospheres of the Creative Space and the Classic Office go along with the fact that these are experienced differently by the users. The “extremely quiet”, colder, sterile (cf. interview Till, para. 69) and serious (cf. interview Thorsten, para. 77) atmosphere of the Classic Office, which reminds of that of an “office in the classic sense” (interview Theo, para. 202) and reflects the “more conserva-

182

7  Case Portraits of the Examined Coworking Spaces

tive WORLD” (interview Thomas, para. 234), is contrasted with the “a BIT more lively”, warmer, (cf. interview Till, para. 69), unserious (interview Thorsten, para. 77) and lounge-like (cf. interview Theo, para. 202) atmosphere of the Creative Space as an expression of the “moDERN world” (interview Thomas, para. 234). This is also reflected in the assessments at the Semantic Differential3, where the two open spaces differ most clearly in terms of abstract-seeming characters such as “angular—round”, “serious—playful” or “sober—dreamy”: While the Creative Space is experienced as rather round, playful, soft, dreamy and yielding, the Classic Office is classified as rather angular, serious, hard, sober and strict. This characterization illustrates that the users experience the Classic Office more as a space that disciplines for cognitive work and keeps away from any distractions, while the Creative Space is experienced much more as a stimulating space. The atmosphere of Tabit as a whole is described in comparison to conventional offices of the old world of work as “more relaxed” and “much more casual from, from working” (interview Timo, para. 12), which is also reflected in the users: “The people are LOOSE, so rarely do suit wearers (laughing) come here or something. (Breathes audibly.) (1) So you know, what I MEAN, so not/ Because (1) you are on first-name terms, OF COURSE, somehow. Somehow even self-evident” (interview Tarek, para. 249). And yet Tabit as a workplace (compared to the home office) is representative towards customers and external parties and looks “mega professional” (interview Toni, para. 15). This distinguishes it, as Toni points out elsewhere, again from CWSs, which rather convey “coolness” instead of “office flair” (cf. interview Toni, para. 119 ff.). As Toni emphasizes (and similarly also e.g. Timo for the Creative Space above), the Tabit furnishings for him represent a “good mix” that is neither too “overstyled” nor too simple and that suits him and his start-up (cf. ibid., para. 72 ff.).

3 According

to the number of user interviews, the presentation of the Semantic Differential is based on very small case numbers (n (users) = 10–11/including all interviews: n (users and members of the operating team) = 13–14), which is why a concrete naming of the values and a deeper analysis of the Semantic Differential is omitted. The evaluations of the users excluding as well as including the members of the operating team come to similar results.

7.2  Case Portrait Sargas

183

7.2 Case Portrait Sargas “Sargas is a Salmstadt collective, where diversity, self-organization and social exchange are lived. The community develops new formats of collaborative research and development together.” (Sargas 2016a)

7.2.1 Background Sargas is, as can be read on a program flyer, a “multidisciplinary project space” in the German metropolis of Salmstadt. The focus of the CWS is not only on coworking, but also on the topics of food and art. The three thematic focuses are united by the focus on collaborative projects. On the other hand, connections between the focuses are also established by projects that address two areas at the same time, for example. In doing so, values such as sustainability as well as “diversity, self-organization and social exchange” (Sargas 2016a) are pursued. Sargas was opened in the spring of 2011 in the premises of a former textile factory. Behind the project are two initiators (one of them an artist), who had previously run a bar nearby for several months, where exhibitions and concerts were also organized. Already there, a network of artists and creatives grew. In search of more space to realize larger projects, the founders found the old factory building and initially rented the ground floor. This served as a café, studio and work space for laptop workers alike, as community manager Samuel explains in the interview: “And there were, there was a kitchen, right? Someone cooked for everyone. (I: Mhm.) Then there in the CAFÉ […] there was a corner for artists, who painted, so they used it as a studio. (I: Mhm.) And also people who worked on the computer” (interview Samuel_1, para. 82). Sargas then grew steadily. Soon, the premises on the first and second floors were added as CWS rooms and finally the entire house with its five floors was rented by the Sargas operators. The initial focus on art, food and coworking was maintained and expanded. At the time of the study, Sargas had been in operation for over four and a half years and had gained recognition not only in Salmstadt, but also beyond the borders of Salmstadt and Germany, as the reception in media or blog posts shows. During the field phase at the end of 2015, a new location was also being discussed, which opened in 2016 and was operated until 2019. The first location, which is the focus of this work, was already closed in the summer of 2017, as it could no longer be maintained by the operators due to a drastic rent increase. As with Tabit, the Sargas case study is also presented in the following in the present tense, although the CWS no longer exists.

184

7  Case Portraits of the Examined Coworking Spaces

As already mentioned at the beginning, Sargas’ offer is not limited to coworking. One thematic focus is the area of food, within which different projects are pursued and whose core is the Café on the ground floor. This is a public café, which is open weekdays from ten to five and is used for events outside the opening hours in the evening and on weekends. In addition to cakes and drinks, a daily changing, mostly vegetarian lunch is offered here for a comparatively low price. Sargas follows a so-called chef-in-residence program, in which a self-employed cook prepares the daily lunch for three months.4 Another initiative in the area of food is the Food Assembly, which takes place once a week in the Café and in good weather in the garden. At the “new farmers’ market”, as the Food Assembly is called on a flyer, people have the opportunity to buy food directly from farmers and producers from the region. In addition, there are other projects that deal with the topic of food or connect food with the other focuses. For example, projects rely on the collaboration of artists and cooks. Community Manager Samuel explains in the interview: “We invite a performance artist and a cook. And they have to develop a performative evening together, where art and food are together. And then the craziest things happen. That’s one of the methods we use to connect art and FOOD” (interview Samuel_2, para. 129). As the example shows, the aspect of collaboration between people connects the Sargas projects. This is also the case in the area of art, the second focus of Sargas: In an art program, for example, up to fifteen artists work on five consecutive modules for five months under the guidance of mentors, which are presented to the public in a final event.5 The third thematic focus is finally in the area of coworking. The offer of coworking memberships includes day passes (single or as a five-visit pass), part-time memberships for using the CWS on three days a week, and full-time memberships for using the flexible workstations. In addition, fixed workstations in the Silent Floor are available for full-time use. The use of a multifunctional room, which can be used for meetings, but also for resting, is included in all memberships.

4 Or

as the cook Silas himself puts it: “I’m designing the food in the kitchen for three months” (interview Silas, para. 11), or “[F]or me the kitchen is ehm kind of my STUDIO” (ibid., para. 78). With this he emphasizes the artistic aspect of his work, which illustrates the overlap with the area of art. 5  Reckwitz (2014) also notes that postmodern art production is collective (see chapter “Curating”): “The activity of the postmodern artist is often and that of the artist-curator always collective” (Reckwitz 2014, p. 117).

7.2  Case Portrait Sargas

185

Sargas is a place for a variety of events and workshops. Besides renting out rooms for external events, which, like at Tabit, is a source of income for Sargas, the focus is on own events, which are carried out in connection with the projects in the thematic priorities. Here, connections are also created to the area of coworking. On the one hand, the coworkers are welcome to attend the various events. On the other hand, they are also involved, especially in the area of food: Be it, for example, as voluntary helpers in the preparation of the daily lunch or in the processing of the apples from the Sargas Garden at the Apple Festival, to make juice and cake. Especially for the coworkers, there are also two, alternating biweekly event formats, where the common meal is at the center. On the one hand, the Community Dinner, which has been established as a format in the CWS for a long time and which, besides the common dinner, is framed by collective activities, such as making music together or discussions. On the other hand, the Community Breakfast, which is just being introduced at the time of the investigation. The organizational form of Sargas is a hybrid of for profit in relation to the “coworking business” (interview Samuel_1, para. 76), the room rental for external events and the café, “where we make money (laughing) of course” (ibid.), as community manager Samuel emphasizes, and non profit in the form of an association for the Sargas’ own artist programs and projects. The Sargas core team consists of five people, whose responsibilities are oriented to the focal points of Sargas: coworking, food (and related to that the Café), art (and the related programs) and renting out the rooms for external events. In addition, there is a managing director, who, as Samuel emphasizes, is not hierarchically superior to the other roles. Rather, this role is important for the visibility of Sargas and cooperation with external partners. The Sargas team also includes an intern, who mainly supports the community manager, the chef as part of the Chef-in-Residence program, one or two people who serve the bar, and occasionally a handyman who takes care of repairs in Sargas. In addition, an extended network of acquaintances and friends of the Sargas team is important, who also take on tasks (such as Steve, who waters the plants in the Silent Floor) or projects (such as the redesign of the Sargas website by Sean), which are related to Sargas. The Sargas CWS is open to people with different backgrounds. However, the composition of the users shows a relatively high proportion of solo selfemployed. In addition, there is a company of about 20 people, which has rented a whole floor of the Sargas house, and five employees of a company, who use a separate area in the Vibrant Floor. According to the propagated openness of the CWS, the coworkers come from different fields: from ICT to graphic design to architecture or social work (see also Sect. 6.2.2)—a sectoral focus as in Tabit is not present. However, a location of the professions in the field of cultural and cre-

186

7  Case Portraits of the Examined Coworking Spaces

ative industries can be seen. Moreover, it can be stated that Sargas, in relation to its users, as well as the operators, is an internationally oriented CWS, in which different nationalities can be found. Besides people who live permanently in Salmstadt, there are also temporary users, who are in the city for a certain period of time (for a few days to a few months) and work in the CWS. Sometimes, startups also come to Sargas for a few days to get inspiration there, as community manager Samuel tells me (see field notes BP01). The Sargas House is located in a trendy district of Salmstadt, not far from a subway station in a small side street. On the first visit, it can easily happen that you walk past the property, as the building is set back a bit from the street and the garden with its many greenery camouflages the house well. The garden is also the first thing you cross before entering the former industrial building. The Sargas House itself consists of five floors. In addition to the garden, three floors are used by the coworkers: on the one hand, the Café on the ground floor, which is not only accessible for the coworkers, but also for a public audience and for whose use you do not need a coworking membership. On the two floors above, you can find the two open spaces, which are reserved for the coworkers. These can be reached via the café as well as via a separate entrance. On the first floor, there is the Vibrant Floor with mostly flex desks, on the second floor, the Silent Floor with both fixed and flexible workstations. The third floor of the Sargas House is rented to a company at the time of the study. On the fourth floor, finally, the artists’ programs are carried out. Events, such as conferences or workshops, are also held here. The following will now go into more detail on the design of the spatial arrangements and how they are experienced by the coworkers.

7.2.2 Spaces and Experiences In contrast to Tabit, explicit noise rules are important for the structuring of the Sargas House. In addition, the symbolic-material design of the non-human space of the open spaces is less contrastive than in the case of Tabit: The different container spaces of Sargas follow a basic design concept. This will be discussed in more detail below. Subsequently, the individual open spaces of Sargas and their design will be presented and again it will be shown how the users experience the spaces. Already during the first visit of the Sargas house, future users learn that the criterion of noise level and the implied level of interaction plays an important role for the structuring of the open spaces. Thus, intern Sarah explains in the

7.2  Case Portrait Sargas

187

interview: “When you come here first, you probably would have like a little tour through the building, where I will explain: ‘Okay, this is the Vibrant Floor, you can talk here. Here is the Silent Floor, you need to be a little QUIET.’” (interview Sarah, para. 107). While at the Café on the ground floor only the opening hours are written on the entrance door, at the workspaces on the first and second floor the information about the noise level and the associated level of interaction is already written on the outside of the massive metal doors: On the door on the first floor it says Coworking Dynamic (in the field this room is also called Vibrant Floor, as well as in this work), on the door of the second floor it says Coworking Silence (in the field referred to as Silent Floor). These explicit, albeit comparatively open-ended rules of conduct were deliberately defined by the operators, as community manager Samuel explains to me in the interview. He justifies the focus on the noise level and the anticipated level of interaction in the conception of the workspaces with intercultural differences between the users, as he explains about the Silent Floor: “In Germany you need something like that. In, in, in Spain nobody wants the quiet one. If a Spaniard works here, he works on, on any case on the first [note AB: Vibrant Floor], because he DOES NOT WANT to be so quiet”6 (interview Samuel_1, para. 198). An internal concept paper of Sargas provides information that the operators anticipate different user groups with this distinction, regardless of nationality: On the one hand, those who appreciate a lively and dynamic workspace, and on the other hand, people who want to work completely concentrated in a quiet environment. The spatial organization of the Sargas house is also designed to allow users to move within the house according to their needs and activities (cf. Jakonen et al. 2017).

6 Although

there are also people from Southern Europe among the interviewed coworkers who mainly work on the Silent Floor. Samuel’s heuristic regarding the different mentalities falls short in this respect, but shows that the operators are aware that there are people with different preferences regarding the noise level at work, as well as having knowledge of the international composition of the CWS. That there are intercultural differences in the design of CWSs was shown to me by the visits of other CWSs. For example, there is a Spanish CWS that I visited, which, despite its generous space, has too few quiet workspaces, as a coworker, herself South American, tells me, who wishes for more quietness at work in this CWS. Although there is a so-called “library” (which is also designed as such), where quiet work is done—but there are only flexible workspaces here (unlike the Sargas Silent Floor). That personal space varies culturally is empirically proven (cf. Hellbrück and Kals 2012, p. 78) and is also evident in my observations. For example, I noticed particularly clearly in CWSs in Lisbon that the coworkers sat much closer together than in CWSs in Germany or Switzerland.

188

7  Case Portraits of the Examined Coworking Spaces

Fig. 7.3   Section of Sargas Garden. (Photo: Samantha)

7.2.2.1 Overall Design and Considerations for Spatial Design The rooms of the Sargas house have in common that they are high, light-flooded, bright rooms with large windows. The walls and ceilings are painted white, with the structure of the brick wall often visible under the white plaster. Hanging lamps made of white lacquered metal are attached to the wave-shaped ceilings, which give off a comparatively dim light when in use. All rooms have massive columns that support the ceilings, as well as dark brown parquet floors in herringbone pattern, which remind of a living room. From a design perspective, the Café, the Vibrant and the Silent Floor fit into an overall concept that follows aesthetic design principles and is characterized by an arrangement of plants, natural elements and art objects. The white walls are used for the presentation of paintings or photographs. Natural materials also become part of art objects: For example, there is a tree trunk on the Silent and the Vibrant Floor, each of which is attached to the ceiling by ropes and has hooks attached to it. This installation serves as a coat rack for hanging jackets. Likewise, plants are also presented as art objects by placing them on ladders or small tables, or, as in the Café, by illuminating them with a spotlight. The room design thus implicitly anchors the focal points of the CWS—art and sustainability. All open spaces of Sargas are subject to a uniform color scheme, which is determined by white and natural tones (such as brown, beige and green) and a little red. The furnishing of the open spaces differs mainly by the use of café and vintage furniture from the living area on the one hand and simple functional office

7.2  Case Portrait Sargas

189

furniture on the other hand. While in the Café wooden tables, a sofa, an armchair or a piano can be found, the Silent Floor is furnished with plain modern office furniture. The Vibrant Floor takes an intermediate position: Here, too, simple office furniture can be found, although the desks look less massive and high-quality and somewhat smaller than those on the Silent Floor. As in the Café, there is also furniture in vintage design on the Vibrant Floor, which remind of a living room. All three open spaces have in common that the chairs are very different in terms of shapes, style, materiality and ergonomics resp. quality, although they vary in their composition on each floor. From the interview with community manager Samuel, it becomes clear that the design of the rooms was done consciously with the claim that the users feel at home: “So the aesthetics is like, how m/ where you feel AT HOME and so on, right? So (1) that is important, that you create a space, that you come here and feel at home, right? (I: Mhm.) And uhm (2) so, we then designed the spaces (1) NOT like d/ SALMSTADT, which is always very dirty and very much with graffiti and STICKERS everywhere. (I: Mhm.) That was then here, the aesthetics was like, yes, in COMPARISON it is rather clean and so, no stickers, no graffiti. (I: Mhm.) So, that was already one of the, well, a FEATURE, that we tried to keep the things as clean as possible here. (1) (I: Mhm.) And, yes. (1) That’s how we design the space.” (interview Samuel_1, para. 87)

One design criterion that Samuel associates with feeling at home is the cleanliness of the CWS—stickers and graffiti, which he identified as typical symbols of a “dirty” aesthetic typical of Salmstadt, were avoided in this respect. Another point that Samuel also mentions is the “artistic aspect” (ibid.) of Sargas, which expresses the art-relatedness of the Sargas operating team. This gives the spaces an individuality that Samuel contrasts in the interview with a “mass-produced coworking space” with standardized office character (ibid.). In addition, a familial and cozy atmosphere is characteristic for Sargas, as Samuel explains elsewhere (cf. interview Samuel_2, para. 15). The coziness is achieved by two design means: The use of plants and the constant change of the non-human space create a relaxed ambiance, which ultimately contributes to the cozy atmosphere (cf. ibid.). Ergonomics, on the other hand, is not the first priority in the room design. The following sections will now go into more detail on those open spaces of the Sargas house that are accessible to the coworkers. In addition to the work areas Vibrant Floor and Silent Floor, this includes the Café and the garden as the outdoor space of Sargas.

190

7  Case Portraits of the Examined Coworking Spaces

Fig. 7.4   Section of Sargas Café. (Photo: Sabine)

7.2.2.2 Garden The first thing visitors of Sargas see when they enter through the gate is the large garden (see Fig. 7.3) with the apple trees and other plants, whose ground is completely covered with small bright pebbles. Here, a total of ten tables with space for four people each are arranged individually or in a row, with simple benches or folding chairs made of plastic as seating options. The spatial arrangement of apple trees, pebble ground, simple tables, benches and chairs reminds of a beer garden. In the back part of the garden, there is also a corner arranged and covered with pallets and beanbags. From the gate, a path leads to the ivy-covered Sargas house. While the garden is deserted in unpleasant weather and only visited briefly for a smoking break if necessary, it becomes all the more popular in dry and not too cold weather. Then it is used by both coworkers and other visitors alike— the constellations of people in the outdoor space change constantly. At the tables, there are people who interact with each other, have lunch together or hold a meeting, as well as people who sit alone at their laptops and/or drink a cup of coffee. Here, both activities of work and non-work are performed. In good weather and especially in summer, events also take place here—not only during the day, but also until late in the evening. Coworker Simon, with whom I conduct the interview on a sunny November day in the covered corner of the Sargas Garden, from which we have an observer’s perspective on the events, describes the atmosphere in the CWS through the following description of the garden:

7.2  Case Portrait Sargas

191

“So today is MONDAY. (Sighs laughing.) (1) It is well known that it is not the (2) uh most motivated workday of the week. (1) But I’m LYING here v/ in the GARDEN (1) of Sargas (I: (Laughs.)) on a giant cushion in the sun. (1) And in front of us, people are sitting (2) in the sun, talking, working, eating. (1) And ENJOYING the nice weather. And that’s why I would say that the mood here and today in Sargas is very relaxed and sunny.” (interview Simon, para. 3)

Although Monday in the conventional work context is not considered the “most motivated workday” as the first workday of the week, Simon describes below a situation in which working is placed in the context of an important atmospheric component in relation to outdoor space, the good weather (which is at the same time a prerequisite for using the garden) and other activities: It is embedded in social activities, such as talking or activities of reproduction of one’s own labor power, and recreation, such as eating or enjoying the nice weather. While in conventional work contexts one can only enjoy the nice weather during the break, at the end of the workday or on the weekend, it is also possible in Sargas according to Simon’s description to do this while working in the garden and to draw one’s own motivation for the work Monday from it.7 On the basis of this tracing of the spatial arrangement and its effect, Simon comes to the conclusion, “that the mood here and today in Sargas is very relaxed and sunny.” While the sunny weather (the today) is transient, the relaxed mood is characteristic for Sargas (the here), as Simon will explain later. The garden, which Simon also calls in the interview a “little oasis (1) in, (1) in the city” (interview Simon, para. 124), is a special place for him, where he feels “privileged to be here” (ibid.) in the bodily presence sensing the atmosphere. He is not alone in this: The garden also has a special value for the other coworkers and receives a lot of appreciation in the user interviews: “The option being able to sit outside on the tables eh just to eat lunch or to work even, ehm yeah, it’s really, it’s really spectacular.” (interview Samantha, para. 50) “The GARDEN of course I really like, it’s a really gi/ BIG plus for me. (I: Mhm.) Ehm, (1) yeah, the garden is a big plus.” (interview Samir, para. 124)

7 In

this regard, the well-known motto TGIF (“Thank God it’s Friday”) is transformed in the coworking discourse into TGIM (“Thank God it’s Monday”). Instead of longing for the end of the workweek, this slogan is about looking forward to the start of the workweek in the CWS.

192

7  Case Portraits of the Examined Coworking Spaces

“And then I love the garden, I love to work in the garden outside.” (interview Serge, para. 151)

The majority of the interviewed users who took photos also photographed the outdoor space in front of the house—in almost all user interviews the garden is highlighted positively. Again and again it is emphasized how good it is to have such an outdoor space, which for some of the interviewed coworkers was also a plus point in choosing to work in Sargas (see below Sect. 9.2).

7.2.2.3 Café The Sargas Café (see Fig. 7.4) has its own entrance door as well as another door—partly open, partly closed—that connects it with the staircase and thus with the upper floors of the building. Upon entering, the large transparent water dispenser at the column in the middle of the Café catches the eye, inside which charcoal, sand and other materials are layered on top of each other and from which the Café visitors can tap free drinking water. The artifact embodies the connection between sustainability and art, which is characteristic for Sargas. The next glance wanders to the left towards the large counter, where food and drink orders are placed. Among other things, vegan cakes and other pastries are arranged on it. Under the counter there are garbage bins for waste separation and a dog basket. Thus, in addition to the human café visitors, there are also occasionally two dogs in Sargas. Opposite the counter on the column there is a board that gives information about the lunch dish, which changes every day. It also happens that on the board simply the note “trust the cook” can be read. Lunch is created situationally depending on the availability of food and “leftovers” and is usually vegetarian. The wall behind the counter is equipped with typical bar inventory, such as glasses, dishes and a sink. Next to it hangs a board with the selection of beverages. This includes, besides various coffee variations and other hot drinks, a selection of cold drinks (such as organic lemonades, regional beer or apple juice made from the apples of the Sargas Garden). Visually and acoustically striking is the professional barista coffee machine, which is even larger than the one in the Tabit Creative Space. Unlike Tabit, the Sargas Café guests, who include the coworkers, are served here and pay for the coffee.8 Behind the counter there is a slightly elevated open kitchen, which has professional large-scale kitchen appliances and corresponding kitchen inventory.

8 Only

the lunch is brought to the table by the Café staff. The guests take the drinks themselves to their seats.

7.2  Case Portrait Sargas

193

Fig. 7.5   Section of Sargas Vibrant Floor. (Photo: Sophie)

The Café itself is a large room with densely arranged solid wood tables of different sizes, which offer space for about 40 people. Besides tables with space for two or four people, a long table in the back part of the room stands out, whose tabletop consists of five massive brown wooden boards and can seat nine people (or more at the community breakfast), making it the largest in the room. The chairs of the Café are very different according to the design concept and it seems that none is like the other: The range goes from simple folding chairs made of plastic to wooden chairs, unpadded or with fabric or plastic padding, to armchair chairs in retro design. Further seating options are offered by a sofa, an armchair or a small wooden bench, on which an old typewriter was positioned. In the café there is also a piano. Following the overall design concept, the overall picture of the Café is determined by numerous plants and art elements. In the Café, coworkers, members of the operating team and their guests, as well as café visitors without CWS membership share the space and are not distinguishable from each other for outsiders. The composition of the users of the Café appears more heterogeneous than on the Vibrant and Silent Floor and is in constant change throughout the day and from day to day. Here, similar to the garden and the Tabit Creative Space, different activities take place side by side. Here too, the focus is on interaction: People meet privately to have coffee together or have lunch and chat, as well as in a work context, to hold a team meeting on the laptop or a customer meeting over lunch, for example. Here, coworkers spend their break together, discuss a project or have a meeting with external people. At

194

7  Case Portraits of the Examined Coworking Spaces

the same time, individual activities are pursued for themselves. So there are also people who look concentratedly at their laptop or sometimes read a book or draw on paper and/or eat their lunch for themselves. Likewise, I experience that a person sits down at the piano and plays something on it or that people spontaneously dance in front of the counter. The Café serves as a social meeting place, a place for individual work as well as a place for working in a team and as a break place at the same time. In addition, the Café is a venue, mostly outside of opening hours. Here, the community breakfast and the community dinner as events for exchange among the coworkers, other Sargas events and external events take place. The Café is characterized by a lively café atmosphere, which reaches its peak at lunchtime. The sound atmosphere of the Café is determined by a mixture of voices (as in the entire Sargas house in different languages), music (which varies in volume and style), cooking noises from the kitchen and coffee machine noises. But also the sense of smell is activated, when the cooking smells from the open kitchen flow through the room. At the same time, one can observe the cooks in the open kitchen at their work. So I note: “You smell, see and hear what is happening here” (field notes BP02, para. 30). Like the garden, the Sargas Café as a whole is appreciated by the interviewed users, accompanied by a positive aesthetic judgment: “[I]t’s a very nice room” (interview Sheldon, para. 52) or “the café, I enjoy it a lot” (interview Sebastian_2, para. 27). Together with the lunch and the garden, it is one of the advantages that were decisive for some users to choose Sargas as a work place (and not another CWS) (see Sect. 9.2). In relation to the atmosphere generated by the non-human space, user Sandro comes to the following evaluation: “They’ve done a, a very good job, I think, of creating a, (1) a WARM and cozy eh dining room (1) ehm atmosphere” (interview Sandro, para. 60). In addition, the interviewed coworkers describe the Café and its atmosphere as “pleasant, somehow CONVIVIAL, positive mood. Eh friendly also somehow” (interview Sabine, para. 3) or “It’s very laid back, eh (1) open. It’s quite BRIGHT and LIGHT” (interview Sheldon, para. 116), but also “noisy” (interview Sebastian_2, para. 25). The liveliness in the Café is central in the descriptions by the coworkers: “I really like the buzz of the café” (interview Samantha, para. 75). By seeing what is happening in the open kitchen, it is attributed an open character (see interview Sabine, para. 55).

7.2.2.4 Vibrant Floor On the first floor there is the Vibrant Floor (see Fig. 7.5). Next to the information “Coworking Dynamic” on the entrance door, it also says what the coworkers can expect here: “Fix and Flex Desks”, “WIFI”, “Basic office supplies”, “Printer &

7.2  Case Portrait Sargas

195

Scanner”, “Data projector”, “Meeting room”, “Nap room” and a toilet. The door of the Vibrant Floor is mostly open, so that you can catch a glimpse of the room as you pass by. Conversely, if you are in the Open Space, you can hear and smell what is going on in the stairwell and in the Café. In addition to the noises, the smells from the Café, which are created during cooking, quickly make their way to the floor above. The Vibrant Floor has eleven desks, which consist of light chipboard tabletops, which rest on simple, partly colored wooden trestles. This makes the tables mobile in terms of their positioning and conveys a provisional character. The tables are arranged individually or in two pairs. While the double tables are in the middle of the room, the single tables are at the windows and walls with a view to the white, partly tiled wall or with a view to the window. One of the double tables, referred to as “Sargas table” in my protocols, is used by the operating team, which often sits in threes at this table group. During the core hours of the CWS, it serves as a reception and is staffed by the community manager and/or the intern, who are the contact persons for coworkers and new interested parties. As a marker, a sign with the inscription “I’m your host today” hangs on the back of the laptop or the external screen of the person in charge. Apart from the fact that there is an external screen on this table group and that documents or books can be found on it from time to time, the table group is not clearly marked as the workplace of the Sargas team when they are absent. The other tables are flexible workstations, which are usually completely empty when not in use. The Vibrant Floor is characterized by a mix of simple and functional office furniture as well as playful vintage elements, plants and art objects, following the overall design concept. There are also areas that look sober and barren, such as the wall workstations. The office furniture—besides the tables also shelves and cabinets, which are mostly used by the operating team—are practical and simple. There are more chairs than tables, so that two people can share a desk here. The seating options of the Vibrant Floor are not uniform and resemble those in the Café, although there are also office chairs here. In addition, there is an armchair, a sofa and various “retro furniture” (field notes BP01, para. 23) such as a coffee table, small tables with plants, a floor lamp or a small wooden dresser. In the back part of the Vibrant Floor there is a separate area with five fixed desks of a company, which is separated from the open space by a mostly drawn curtain. On the other side is another room, which—as it says on the entrance door—can be used as a meeting and recreation room. This is separated from the open space by a wooden door with a glass pane, which allows glimpses into the other area (although the window can also be covered by a curtain). The furnishing of this multifunctional room is completely dedicated to the vintage style and reminds of

196

7  Case Portraits of the Examined Coworking Spaces

Fig. 7.6   Section of Sargas Silent Floor. (Photo: Stefan)

a living room, consisting of a floor lamp and a simple low table, around which various armchairs and a bed, which was decorated with pillows to a sofa, are arranged. The area of work is only indicated here by a flipchart. In contrast to the garden and Café, which are open to the public, the Vibrant Floor (with the exception of the toilet, which is shared by café visitors and Vibrant Floor users) is reserved exclusively for the coworkers. Among the present coworkers are groups or teams as well as individuals. A constant group of the Vibrant Floor are the members of the Sargas team, who not only stay at the Sargas table, but also at other tables of the Vibrant Floor. In addition, there are people from the extended network who work on Sargas projects. Often, the space is co-determined by interactions among the Sargas employees or Sargas employees and surrounding coworkers. In this regard, coworker Sina also refers to this open space as “Sargas heart” (interview Sina, para. 97). Apart from that, the composition of the users also changes over the day in the Vibrant Floor and there is a constant movement, as café guests also enter the Vibrant Floor to use the toilet or users of the Silent Floor to make a phone call. Here different activities take place, which are mainly located in the area of work. The rule Coworking Dynamic promotes both activities of interaction and exchange, such as a joint meeting on the laptop or a phone call in the open space. On the other hand, users also work concentratedly for themselves on the laptop. The atmosphere of interpersonal communication and the associated noise level vary more strongly than in the Silent Floor or Café—depending on the present

7.2  Case Portrait Sargas

197

people who co-constitute the space. It can be lively and loud as well as quiet and focused here. In the user interviews, the Vibrant Floor is characterized less in terms of the symbolic-material design of the non-human space and the atmosphere created by it, and more in terms of the volume and the associated level of interaction and the accompanying atmosphere of interpersonal communication, according to its name. The Open Space is classified in this respect as in between the lively and loud café and the quiet and still Silent Floor, whose atmosphere shifts more in one or the other direction depending on the present constellations of people. Thus, coworker Sebastian describes the space in comparison to the Café as “working space, more quiet. But even though (2) friendly and (1) noisy” (interview Sebastian_2, para. 25). The volume level in the Vibrant Floor varies between the extremes “very loud” and “extremely QUIET”, as user Samir has observed over time (interview Samir, para. 143). Coworker Sabine, who mainly works in the Vibrant Floor, describes the mood in the room at the time of the interview as “lively” and yet “pleasant and quiet” (interview Sabine, para. 3). Coworker Samantha, on the other hand, never uses the Vibrant Floor, as she finds it “too crowded” (interview Samantha, para. 75) for herself. The design of the multifunctional space stands out from the Open Space and corresponds to the Salmstadttypical vintage look of Sargas, as user Serge notes (cf. interview Serge, para. 54). It has a “very cozy, […] [It] LOOKS like your/ I’m at home in my living room, you know. It’s very (1) FAMILIAR” (ibid., para. 58) effect on him.

7.2.2.5 Silent Floor The door of the Silent Floor is usually closed, unlike that of the Vibrant Floor. On its outside, you again find the information about what to expect for the user: “Fix and Flex Desks”, “WIFI”, “Printer & Scanner” and another toilet. In addition, a kitchen and a “Private working room” are announced. The door inscription “Coworking Silence” itself also gives the explicit rule that this is a quiet working area. Due to its location on the second floor and the mostly closed solid door, the container space is cut off from the rest of the house, making it hard for the smells of the Café and the noises from outside to reach here. When entering the Silent Floor (see Fig. 7.6), the first thing that catches the eye is the plant wall, which acts as a further room divider next to the columns. This is a large wooden frame on wheels, which houses a flower box and is covered with wire, on which monstera and other plants climb up. The back wall of the container space is almost completely covered by two black-and-white pictures of large molecular images. The open space comprises a total of 20 desks, whereby fixed and flexible desks are not spatially separated from each other.

198

7  Case Portraits of the Examined Coworking Spaces

On the flexible workstations there are picture frames with the note “Flex Desk”. These tables are—with exceptions—largely empty when not in use. The fixed desks, on the other hand, are fairly easy to identify for outsiders based on their personalization and the lack of picture frames. The tables consist of trestles, on which table tops rest (with the exception of one height-adjustable fixed desk), as do those of the Vibrant Floor. However, the table tops appear more massive, higher quality and slightly larger than those of the Vibrant Floor. The chairs also vary in the Silent Floor, where comparatively many different models of office chairs of different heights, covers and quality can be found. The number of tables and chairs roughly matches: Here one workstation is provided per table. The tables are mostly arranged in groups of two and three. On some tables there are external screens, among others also on flex desks, which are marked with corresponding picture frames with the inscription “Flex Screen”. On each table group there is also at least one desk lamp. In the Silent Floor, only office furniture can be found, which overall look simple and functional, albeit somewhat higher quality than those in the Vibrant Floor. The special feature here is also art and plant elements, which are designed according to the design concept so that they do not distract. The Silent Floor houses a separate small “Private working room” with a sliding door, which is usually open. This container space has a height-adjustable table, an external monitor, three office chairs (of which only the one positioned at the table seems to be usable) and a retro floor lamp. Due to the thin walls, noises from the open space and the self-service kitchen are clearly audible here. Thus, the room offers mainly visual privacy and is used, as noted on the door of the Silent Floor, for individual work for oneself, not for communication, due to the lack of sound insulation. Right next to it is another container space without a door: The self-service kitchen is equipped with a refrigerator (for storing own food), a kettle, a coffee machine (which is not in operation), a sink (in which dishes sometimes pile up), a shelf (with different tea and coffee packs and other foods of the users) and a small table with a chair. The kitchen is simple and reminds of a shared flat kitchen. In contrast to handwritten notes, there are pre-printed notes from the operating team here, indicating to keep the kitchen clean. Except for a framed picture on the wall, there are no art or nature elements or plants here. The composition of the users of the Silent Floor varies over time, as in the other container spaces. However, there are some coworkers here who are more regularly encountered—either because they have a fixed workstation or because they are users of flexible workstations who regularly visit the Silent Floor. During my stays, I notice that the proportion of men here usually clearly predominates,

7.2  Case Portrait Sargas

199

while the gender ratio in the other spaces is more balanced (and in the Vibrant Floor sometimes there are more women than men present). The noise level of the Silent Floor is limited to the background noises of quiet laptop work, such as keyboard sounds, chair movements, coughing, clearing one’s throat, as well as footsteps, noises when opening or closing the door and noises from the kitchen (such as washing up or kettle noises). The atmosphere of interpersonal communication that goes along with the rule Silent Floor reminds me of that of a library. Here, silence is the highest commandment, as the name “Coworking Silence” implies, and the activities follow suit. Accordingly, the coworkers typically sit quietly and concentratedly by themselves at the laptop. Activities of interaction or break activities hardly take place: Thus, in the Sargas Silent Floor, conversations between the coworkers (and if so, then in a muted tone) or phone calls are rarely observed. What is striking, however, is that often coworkers temporarily leave the room to make phone calls in the stairwell, in the Vibrant Floor or in the garden. That the small table in the self-service kitchen is used for (lunch) breaks, I only experience in the case of one person. The most important characteristic that is highlighted by the interviewed coworkers in relation to the Silent Floor is the quietness that dominates the room and is associated with a “concentrated working atmosphere” (interview Stefan, par. 3) and focused working by oneself. Coworker Sina, who mainly stays in the Silent Floor, sums up the mood as follows: “I think it’s very different on the first floor and again different on the, on the CAFÉ downstairs. But I think on the second floor it’s always very conCENtrated. (2) And quiet. (I: Mhm.) I would just say, concentrated. (I: Mhm.) Definitely a very concentrated mood. BUT really not, so not, not very OPEN and not very cheerful either. But really just, everyone does their own THING” (interview Sina, par. 7). Sina uses the attributes “quiet” and “(always very) concentrated” to characterize the mood in the Silent Floor. In contrast, however, she does not attribute much openness and cheerfulness to it— qualities that she seems to associate more with the Vibrant Floor and the Café. At the same time, this emphasized demarcation also seems to relate to her own expectation as well as to general notions that the mood in CWSs is typically open and cheerful. But openness and cheerfulness are not the primary features of concentrated work: In the Silent Floor, it is not about the interaction with the other coworkers, but rather about the joint working alongside each other, as Sina clarifies. She does not seem to find it negative that there is a concentrated mood in the Silent Floor, although she would welcome more cheerfulness and openness. The spatial arrangement gives the coworkers enough personal space and thus privacy: “I think that, THAT room upstairs is a, is a GOOD, (1) ehm good room for working, for concentration, you have enough SPACE, you’re not like really

200

7  Case Portraits of the Examined Coworking Spaces

next to each other, but also you’re not alone in the room” (interview Sandro, par. 27). The size of the tables (interview Sebastian_2, par. 27) as well as their design (interview Serge, par. 101) are positively evaluated. From the side of the interviewed coworkers, there are more statements about the Silent Floor, compared to the Vibrant Floor, in relation to the effect of the symbolic-material space. This is perceived as aesthetically appealing, as for example user Sebastian explains, for whom the Silent Floor does not appear like a work space: “Yeah, it doesn’t, (2) it doesn’t look as a WORKING space (1) has a good (?feeling). (2) Yeah, it’s quite comfortable. (I: Mhm.) it’s really comfortable, […] YEAH, it’s a nice WORKING SPACE (I laughs) and really as SPACE” (interview Sebastian_1, par. 54 ff.). For coworker Simon, the Silent Floor is “the most beautiful coworking SPACE [note AB: in terms of work space]” of Sargas and the couple Scott and Sophie make their aesthetic preference clear over the Vibrant Floor, as it appears warmer and cozier to them (interview Scott_Sophie, par. 42 ff.).

7.2.2.6 Overall Assessment of Sargas and its Spaces As shown, the open spaces of the Sargas house differ less strongly from those of Tabit in terms of the symbolic-material design of the non-human space. The high factory rooms with the large windows, which let in a lot of natural light during the day, as well as the use of plants, art and natural elements, run like a red thread through the design of the non-human space. This is also repeatedly highlighted positively in the interviews, without the assessment being assigned to a specific container space: “There are (2) a few PLANTS and a few (2) elements that make the whole thing HOMELY. […] these TREE trunks, for example, that are converted […] into a wardrobe, yes. (I: Mhm.) I think that’s great too. That there are such SMALL details that are n/ that are NICELY thought out. (I: Mhm.) Yes. (I: Mhm.) That it’s also a bit (changes voice) made with LOVE.” (interview Simon, para. 88 ff.) “Well, the building itself I think is, is very nice. (I: Mhm.) Eh the bricks and the big windows ehm create eh (1) a NICE working atmosphere. (1) It’s quite typical of Salmstadt, but they also have their own (1) furniture here and their own way of designing everything and of eh making it a bit (1) eh UNIQUE and eh DIFFERENT from eh maybe more standardized and more eh, (1) not corporate, but you know start-up, there is a kind of (1) ehhh CHIC, start-up chic or new, modern ehm eh office space, a kind of a (1) eh aesthetics. And I think here it’s, (1) it’s very unique and eh WARM, it’s not too eh standard. It’s, you know, every piece has a bit of character, so I think that creates a good (1) ehm, a good ensemble all together.” (interview Sandro, para. 29)

7.2  Case Portrait Sargas

201

Sandro in the second quote is not the only interview partner who assigns the Sargas premises to an aesthetic that is characteristic of Salmstadt. The interviewed users associate this Salmstädter aesthetic not only with the factory character, but also with a simple furnishing that is nevertheless individual, the use of vintage elements, the combination of different furniture and a related improvisation. User Sina goes even further and not only locates the non-human space as characteristic of Salmstadt, but also characterizes the people and the atmosphere in general as typical of Salmstadt and the scene quarter, where the CWS is located (cf. interview Sina, para. 125–127). In the above interview excerpt, Sandro distinguishes the room design of Sargas from the more standardized “start-up chic” or the modern work space aesthetic. Although the design of the CWS is subject to an aesthetic that is characteristic of Salmstadt, it does not seem to conform to any norm and does not appear characterless. Thus, according to Sandro’s assessment, the CWS has its own style, which is characterized by uniqueness, difference, warmth and deviation from the standard. The furnishing is not always perceived by the users as ergonomic and comfortable, which is especially evident in the evaluation of the chairs, which are perceived as very different and sometimes uncomfortable in each space. In addition, standing tables are sometimes missed. The different rules of behavior regarding the volume and the associated level of interaction determine the interpersonal atmospheres significantly and thus also the experience of the coworkers, as becomes clear in the quote from coworker Sebastian: “It’s a (2) completely different ehm ambience in the same working space. (I: Mhm.) (2) CAFÉ. More public, more lou/ (1) eh (2) NOISY, (3) vibrant FLOOR, so working space, more quiet. But even though (2) friendly and (1) noisy. And the silent space more private and quiet” (interview Sebastian_2, para. 25). The combination of volume control, access rights and location leads to the fact that with increasing floor the spaces are not only quieter, but also more private. The effect of the volume rule is also reflected in the average assessments of the users at the Semantic Differential9, which differ most clearly for the Café and

9 As

already explained in the case of Tabit, the presentation of the Semantic Differential for Sargas is also based on very small case numbers (n (users) = 5–10/including all interviews: n (users, members of the operating team and extended circle of friends) = 8–14), which is why a concrete naming of the values and a deeper analysis of the Semantic Differential is also omitted here. The evaluations of the users as well as those including the members of the operating team and the extended circle of friends come to similar results. The fluctuations in terms of case numbers are due to the fact that the interviewees in the case of Sargas only evaluated those open spaces that they also use.

202

7  Case Portraits of the Examined Coworking Spaces

the Silent Floor with regard to the adjective pair “loud-quiet”. The Vibrant Floor takes an intermediate position, whereby its average rating is closer to that of the Café. In addition, the Silent Floor is characterized as rather serious, passive and strict, while the Café is described as rather playful, active and lenient (the ratings of the Vibrant Floor are again close to those of the Café for these attributes). Interesting and indicative of the effect of the similarly designed non-human space is also that the classic aesthetic judgment regarding the beauty of the container spaces is not very different: Thus, Silent Floor, Café and Vibrant Floor are rated as rather beautiful at the Semantic Differential—an aesthetic judgment that is also made across the board in the user interviews: “[I]t’s very, (1) it’s VERY beautiful. And it’s very, has lots of natural light, and has (1) nice furniture and, and nice, nice spaces” (interview Samantha, para. 50). The communicative atmosphere of Sargas is generally described as “always quite relaxed. (I: Mhm.) Yes. Family atmosphere, I would say” (interview Simon, para. 7) or as “COZY, FAMILIAR, INTIMATE, (1) ah it’s nice” (interview Serge, para. 58). In addition, Sargas and its general atmosphere are also characterized as open (cf. among others interviews Stefan, para. 22, Sheldon,para. 80 f.), friendly (cf. interviews Samir, para. 30, Sina, para. 13) or “sometimes (1) a little (1) relaxed and EASYgoing” (interview Sandro, para. 72).

7.3 Intermediate Conclusion: Typical Work Settings As shown, the spatial arrangements of the CWSs studied support different activities: loud or quiet, focused on oneself or in interaction with others, from the area of work or non-work. In doing so, all container spaces including the outdoor areas enable the constitution of workspaces, following the motto: Work can be done anywhere. With regard to the extent to which activities of leisure and reproduction of one’s own labor power are possible and also interactive activities can take place, differences can be observed. In this respect, two typical work settings (cf. Sect. 3.4.2) can be identified for the two case studies, which are characteristic for larger CWSs with several container spaces: the setting interaction and the setting concentrated mental work. They address the problem of noise in the CWS and accordingly allow different behaviors (and others do not). In addition to louder, interaction-promoting stimulation spaces, both CWSs also have quieter, less distracting spaces that promote mental in the sense of silent work practices (cf. R. Schmidt 2012, p. 140). The two work settings differ in terms of the relationship between work and non-work, which is expressed in the symbolic-material design of the non-human space, the activities taking place there and the (implicit and

7.3  Intermediate Conclusion: Typical Work Settings

203

explicit) rules and becomes perceptible and tangible through the atmosphere (cf. Bernhardt 2017). While there is a stronger spatial mixing of work and non-work in the spaces for interaction10, the spaces for concentrated mental work are focused on the area of work. Both work settings are briefly characterized below: The spaces for interaction include the Sargas Garden, the Café and the Vibrant Floor as well as the Tabit Creative Space. They enable or promote the encounters and social interactions between present people or verbal communication with absent people. This work setting allows individual activities without interaction as well as interactions. These spaces are little regulated and comparatively open and flexible in terms of their use. As a spatial expression of a fragmentally differentiated knowledge society, work, leisure, culture and consumption are brought together at one place here (cf. Schroer 2010, p. 285). Here different forms of activities take place: work as well as non-work, loud as well as quiet activities, digital as well as analog activities. The spaces for concentrated mental work include the Sargas Silent Floor and the Tabit Classic Office. This work setting promotes quiet and focused (laptop) work without interaction with co-present others. It is more restricted in terms of its usage possibilities compared to the work setting interaction. Thus, these spaces are an expression of a functional differentiation (cf. ibid.), insofar as the focus here is on concentrated mental work. Loud activities, activities of interaction or activities of non-work take place here to a limited extent or almost not at all or in designated areas, such as the meeting rooms. Although similar work settings are created in both CWSs examined, this is done in different ways. In the case of the Sargas workspaces, which are exclusively accessible to the coworkers, the rules of conduct regarding the noise level are already made explicit by their naming Silent Floor and Vibrant Floor. For the Garden and the Café, the noise rules are not as clearly formulated, but the designations imply, together with the respective characteristic milieus and programs, a corresponding interaction-promoting setting. The design concept of the open spaces of the Sargas house is coordinated, although in detail the function of the individual spaces is supported by their symbolic-material design (which is especially evident with regard to the different use of office or office-remote vintage furniture). In the case of Tabit, on the other hand, the symbolic-material design of the non-human space of Creative Space and Classic Office is more contras-

10 With

different degrees: For example, the Sargas Vibrant Floor is more designed as an office than the other spaces for interaction and also the focus of the activities here is on work.

204

7  Case Portraits of the Examined Coworking Spaces

tive. This creates different atmospheres that are accompanied by different implicit rules regarding the noise level and the level of interaction. Thus, in the case of Tabit, the non-human space has a stronger inviting character: The desired behavior is not defined here by explicit noise rules, but by the atmosphere generated by the non-human space. However, here too, the names of the container spaces (“Creative Space” and “Classic Office”) already suggest comparatively vague associations regarding the intended use of the space. It can be stated that in the case of Sargas, the differences in terms of noise and liveliness between the different open spaces are more pronounced than in the case of Tabit: Thus, the Sargas Silent Floor is a particularly typical example of a space for concentrated mental work and the Café as a counterpole a particularly pronounced space for interaction. In the case of Tabit, the work settings and the associated atmospheres vary more situationally depending on the people present, who constitute the space as elements. Thus, it can also be lively or hectic in the Classic Office and quiet and concentrated in the Creative Space. In the case of Sargas, this applies to the Vibrant Floor, whose communicative atmosphere also varies depending on the people present, as Sargas user Samir notes: “It’s really about feeling the situation […] whether it’s today to chat or not.” (interview Samir, para. 143). In this scope, however, the work settings and the associated communicative atmospheres are comparatively constant over time and the people present are interchangeable. At the same time, the container spaces are experienced differently by the coworkers and synthesized into different (work) spaces, as Chap. 10 will show. In this regard, rule violations are also experienced by the users, insofar as the perception of (un)rest and the interpretation of the rules and the associated tolerance limits are individually different (Bernhardt 2017, p. 62). This will be discussed in more detail in the last chapter of the results section (see Chap. 13). The following will now examine in more detail what coworking in everyday life entails and how the spaces and atmospheres can be described in their composition. Subsequently, the analytical focus will be on the everyday life of the coworkers and thus the subject perspective on the CWS spaces. The further presentation of the results will not be done as a comparative case study with a focus on the differences. Rather, the focus will be on the commonalities with regard to the research questions and if there are differences, these will be explained in the context of the thematic chapters.

8

Material Shape: Practices, Spaces and Atmospheres

What characterizes coworking in the everyday life of CWSs? This question guides the following explanations. First, in Sect. 8.1, two basic practices of maintaining distance and creating proximity are identified, which are of different importance for the settings concentrated mental work and interaction and their atmospheres. In Sect. 8.2, typical spatial arrangements and associated atmospheres of work and communitization are then in the focus of attention (see gray highlighting in Fig. 8.1). For this purpose, the spatial arrangements and atmospheres of coworking are examined in their construction for the work settings concentrated mental work and interaction. The aim is to work out the material shape of the spaces, i.e. the human and non-human elements of the arrangements with their symbolic and material aspects as well as the atmospheric effect (see Löw 2015, p. 222). This brings the spatial structures into view and the associated rules that regulate the spatial action and that are in turn (re-)produced in the spatial action. With regard to the two core functions of CWSs, it is of particular interest how work atmospheres and communal atmospheres are created through the spatial arrangements. In relation to the communal atmospheres, the conclusion will address events as rituals for creating communal atmospheres as well as trust-building practices and rituals that contribute to and reinforce communal atmospheres (see Sect. 8.3). The data basis for the following explanations are the observations of the field and self-observations as well as the interviews with the users and the members of the operating teams.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 A. Bernhardt, Coworking Atmospheres, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41193-0_8

205

206

8  Material Shape: Practices, Spaces and Atmospheres

Fig. 8.1   Conceptual framing—locating chapter 8 (gray marking). (Own illustration)

8.1 Practices for Maintaining Distance and Creating Proximity In everyday CWS life, one significant result of the analysis of the (self-)observations, practices are of particular relevance for which an interplay of proximity and distance is fundamental. While doing being busypractices create distance and thus meet the need for privacy, proximity creating doing being open practices correspond to the need for communication and exchange (see Sect. 3.3.2). These practices that shape everyday CWS life involve operators and coworkers as well as non-human actors. Bender (2013) has elaborated the doing being busy practices in the context of her study (see Sect. 4.2). They are significant with regard to the co-processing of silent laptop work, as this shows the subjects as working and signals that they do not want to be disturbed. As a counterpart, practices can also be identified in the present study that in turn signal openness and proximity and are important for entering into interaction with each other. Analogous to the doing being busy practices, such practices are called doing being open practices in the

8.1  Practices for Maintaining Distance and Creating Proximity

207

following. These practices contribute to a communal atmosphere and the emergence of a sense of belonging. Their importance becomes particularly clear in the interaction setting. Whether one gets into a conversation with another person in the spaces for interaction or not depends essentially on the demonstration of doing being busy resp. doing being open practices. By showing through doing being busy that they are working concentrated on their laptop, coworkers legitimize ignoring other people, which allows them to pursue their activity without interaction with the co-present others. On the other hand, by signaling through doing being open that they are looking for proximity to others and are open for a conversation, they easily open up the possibility of joining a conversation in the case of the interactive spaces. How fluid the transition between mutual leaving alone and interacting with each other resp. between work and break can be, shows the following scene in the Sargas Café at lunchtime: “[After I ordered my lunch at the counter,] I sit down at Stella’s table. […] She nods at me with a smile, that I can sit down—she is on the phone. […] Stella is busy on her laptop when I arrive and is talking in Japanese. I distract myself with my phone […]. When she is done, she also orders something to eat. She works until her food arrives (mine came shortly before). Then she closes her laptop as a sign that she is ready to have a conversation with me. During the meal we talk about Japan, Silas’ cooking course and everything and anything. […] I take longer for my food, we continue to talk. When we are both done, Stella clears her plate away (I follow her) and opens her laptop again. The sign that the conversation is now over. I understand immediately: She wants to continue working.” (Field notes BP14, paras. 9 ff.)

I already know Stella when this incident happens. She opens the social situation by nodding at me with a smile and signaling that I can sit down at her table (doing being open). At the same time, the phone call and the open laptop indicate that she is working and does not want to be disturbed (doing being busy). I then reach for my cell phone as another technical actor, with whose help I also display myself as busy for outsiders (doing being busy) and distract myself at the same time. After ending the phone call, Stella again initiates her openness to interact with me by also ordering her lunch and signaling her willingness to talk by closing the laptop when the food is served, which I also record in the situation (doing being open). We talk about “everything and anything” (doing being open). Following the social conventions, we continue the conversation even when Stella has already finished her meal. When I also finish my lunch, which initiates the end of the interaction between Stella and me. The termination of the conversation and

208

8  Material Shape: Practices, Spaces and Atmospheres

the lunch break is marked by taking away the empty plate and the demonstrative opening of the laptop (doing being busy).

8.1.1 Doing Being Busy First, the analytical focus is on the practices of doing being busy, which have already been worked out in the study by Bender (2013) (see Sect. 4.2). They are always relevant in the CWS context when it comes to being active on the laptop and displaying oneself as working in this respect. In this context, the problem should be pointed out again that the concrete activity on the laptop, which largely takes place without interaction with the co-present others and in silent interaction with the laptop itself (and possibly other persons in the virtual space and further artifacts, such as headphones), is largely invisible and thus a black box for outsiders: Although the coworkers display themselves as working, they can also pursue private activities, such as written interaction with friends or acquaintances via chat or reading in news portals (see Sect. 6.4). Speaking with Goffman’s theater metaphor (see Goffman 2005), I as an observer have no insight into the backstage, but can only observe the staged performance or presentation as working: “In front of others, the individual usually permeates his activity with hints that illustrate and illuminate stage-effectively confirming facts that might otherwise remain unnoticed or unclear” (Goffman 2005, p. 31). Thus, the coworkers present their activity as (laptop) work to the co-present others and include laptops and possibly other artifacts such as headphones, smartphone or notebook in their presentation (see Sect. 10.2). Associated with this, presentations can be observed that display the subject as working, such as a bent body posture towards the laptop, squinting of the eyes, staring at the screen (and thus avoiding eye contact with other present persons) or constant typing on the keyboard (Bender 2013, p. 113 f.; de Vaujany and Aroles 2019): “The […] male counterpart is sitting concentrated at the laptop, slightly leaning back in the chair, earbud headphones in his ears. He is operating the laptop with one hand, on the other he has his chin propped up. He looks busy.” (Field notes BP02, para. 28) or “She is sitting upright with her eyes on the laptop (without headphones) […] and is typing” (ibid.). Here I characterize two people who are sitting with me at the large table in the Sargas Café and who are showing me that they are working for themselves. In particular, the male counterpart looks—so my interpretation—“busy” and signals that he does not want to be disturbed. Bender (2013) speaks here of practices of doing being busy. Through this, the subject involved in the practices makes itself unapproachable for co-present others, without violating social norms of politeness (Bender 2013, p. 129). By the

8.1  Practices for Maintaining Distance and Creating Proximity

209

fact that the co-present others also perform doing being busy practices with their laptops, they are at the same time involved in the joint constitution of a concentrated working atmosphere, which is characteristic for the spaces for concentrated mental work. Silence or quietness in these spaces, as it becomes clear, is not a lack of noise, but is performatively produced, as de Vaujany and Aroles (2019) also point out in their ethnographic study of a maker space. On the contrary: I realize during my field stays in the work setting concentrated mental work again and again those noises that are generated by typing on the keyboards, packing and unpacking personal things, clearing one’s throat or coughing, movements etc. Also de Vaujany and Aroles (2019, p. 219) summarize: “[S]ilence was not at all a continuity; silence was frequently interrupted by micro-noises and sounds in the space, contained a lot of small noises.” In this way, noises generated by co-present others can also have a disturbing effect on the coworkers (see Chap. 13). By deciphering the co-present others as working as well and in the shared understanding that in the spaces for concentrated mental work, silent coworking without interaction is legitimized, a communal atmosphere and a sense of belonging are created again (see Sect. 8.2.1). For the work setting interaction, both doing being busy practices for the undisturbed working-for-oneself and doing being open practices for signaling openness towards co-present others are important. The latter are characterized in more detail in the following section.

8.1.2 Doing Being Open As complementary practices to doing being busy, which legitimize coworking without interaction between co-present coworkers, practices of doing being open are important when it comes to entering into interaction with each other in a common situation. Through this, communal atmospheres of interpersonal communication and a sense of belonging are created and maintained. Such practices are especially, but not exclusively, found in the spaces for interaction and are performed more strongly at events and at social meeting points. Doing being open is characterized by the fact that verbal, nonverbal or paraverbal communication creates closeness between the co-present subjects, even if they (still) do not or only superficially know each other. Through this, the interpersonal atmosphere is codetermined, which in turn is the basis of communication (see chapter Atmosphere as well as Böhme 2013b, p. 32 ff.). Doing being open includes not only the (non-) verbal communication itself, but also a language that signals connectedness and corresponding everyday and extraordinary rituals, which actualize the communal atmosphere (see Julmi 2015, p. 156 ff.). Such rituals are shown in small talk or

210

8  Material Shape: Practices, Spaces and Atmospheres

greeting, but also in events (see ibid.), which will be discussed in more detail later (Sect. 8.3). The search for eye contact in a shared situation or the “play of glances” (Böhme 2013b, p. 43) among co-present subjects, a body posture turned towards the counterpart or the smiling of the co-present other are non-verbal mimicry and gestures of closeness (cf. Argyle and Dean 1965). De Vaujany and Aroles (2019) also observe such signals of openness in the everyday life of a maker space: “A relaxed posture, eyes not staring at the screen of the laptop or a document, a particular body signal (a simple hello) were also other contexts of (often short) conversations with desk neighbours” (p. 216). By doing being open, the subject shows itself as approachable and expresses interest in the co-present others. The non-verbal creation of closeness opens up the possibility of interacting with each other. Once conversational readiness has been signalled, small talk can occur, i.e. verbal exchange between people who do not or only superficially know each other. Small talk in CWS has a rather informal character, while the topics of conversation are often work-related. As a ritual, small talk is a technique of updating communal atmospheres (Julmi 2015, p. 157). As my observations show, in the CWS context it is mainly about getting to know each other, either through a third party such as the community manager or the direct acquaintance or the restoration of an existing relationship between people. The function of small talk, according to Böhme (2013b, p. 39), lies mainly in the speaking itself and is processual in nature: Its purpose is to update the interpersonal atmosphere that underlies it (ibid.). Through it, (loose) relationships between subjects are established, which in terms of building social capital in the context of professional networking can also have an instrumental character (cf. de Peuter et al. 2017). In this regard, I note the following about the first encounter between me and Tirvan, a coworker I did not know until then in the new Tabit, and his remarks on instrumental networking: “Coworker (Tirvan) actively addresses me and asks: ‘What start-up do you have?’ We get into a conversation, which then lasts longer, sit down at the big long coworker table on the other side of the kitchen. […] Tirvan is very open and talkative. He emphasizes again and again that networking in CWS is the most important thing for him. That’s why he also ‘forces’ himself to be open and approach others. He also deliberately said ‘hello’ to me.” (Field notes AP27, paras. 12 f.)

Small talk in the CWS context also involves the exchange of information with a professional background, which may be of interest to the participants in the con-

8.1  Practices for Maintaining Distance and Creating Proximity

211

versation. In this regard, Tabit coworker Timo outlines typical questions that he asks when getting to know a new coworker at the Tabit lunch table (as a social meeting point—see Sect. 8.2.2) in the interview: “Then we sit at the TABLE and I ask then: ‘What do you do? Which company are you with? Are you here for the first time? Um. Can I show you something? Do you need a coffee?’ And uh, that’s very exciting. (1) I think it’s great to meet other people there” (interview Timo, para. 43). The questions that Timo lists here show the focus of interest on the work activity of the counterpart. Thus, the first two questions of getting to know each other—characteristic of small talk—concern the professional existence of the interlocutor. The last two questions, on the other hand, signal Timo’s willingness to help and offer the possibility of further interactions and the initiation of a deeper personal relationship. At the same time, he indicates that he has been a member of the Tabit for a longer time and has acquired corresponding competencies in relation to the use of the CWS or specifically the operation of the barista coffee machine. This quotation also refers to the fact that the coworkers take on tasks that are actually assigned to the members of the operating team as coworking hosts or the community managers in particular (see Chap. 13). Conversely, as my field observations show, it is especially the operators and people from the close environment of the operators who are involved in curating community by doing being open. What appears to the coworkers as casual, spontaneous and relaxed is often part of the curating. In addition, greeting and saying goodbye are important everyday rituals in relation to creating closeness. Besides personal greetings and farewells, it is not uncommon for CWSs that (similar to some conventional offices) the open space is greeted when entering it for the first time on the day. Similarly, this applies to saying goodbye when leaving the CWS. However, this depends on the specific spatial design. Thus, the Sargas Café seems too large and anonymous and it would also be too loud to perform such a ritual. But also a work setting like that of the Sargas Silent Floor prevents greeting in the space (see below Sect. 8.2.1). Moreover, proximity in everyday CWS life is created through language itself. In both cases studied, the typical rules of conduct for CWSs in the form of addressing each other by their first names and the associated use of the informal pronoun “du”, which reduces the personal distance between strangers and signals closeness to each other, apply. In addition, a sense of belonging together is also linguistically created by means of special designations of the CWS members, as can be seen, for example, from the different forms of address in the posts of the Sargas Facebook group: “Dear Sargassians” (as a new word creation), “Hey

212

8  Material Shape: Practices, Spaces and Atmospheres

lovely Sargas people”, “Hey beautiful people of Sargas”,“Dear Friends”,“Hello to the SARGAS community” or “Hello Sargas Family”: All of them express a varying degree of belonging to the ingroup of the CWS and, in connection with this, also a demarcation from the outside. The strongest term used in the field is the metaphor of family as a symbol of a very close traditional community, whose members are particularly close to each other, which is used in Sargas by the community manager Samuel, but also by coworkers (see chapter 11).1 After having examined in more detail the creation of closeness or distance through Doing being open or doing being busy, the material shape of the spaces for concentrated mental work or interaction are in the focus of attention. Doing being open is especially relevant for the work setting interaction. Practices of doing being busy are important for both work settings presented.

8.2 The Production of Spatial Atmospheres of Work and Atmospheres of Communitization In the following, the spatial arrangements and the associated atmospheres in their construction are at the center of attention. For this purpose, the work settings concentrated mental work and interaction are further elaborated on how the spatial elements, i.e. things of the non-human space and their ecstasies, as well as the present persons (coworkers, members of the operating team and other present persons) in their arrangements and the rules that determine the space, are accompanied by certain atmospheres that radiate a sense of belonging together or a working mood in different ways.2

8.2.1 Spaces for Concentrated Mental Work Both in the case of Sargas and in the case of Tabit, there are container spaces that promote the processing of individual, silent mental work: The Sargas Silent Floor and the Tabit Classic Office.3 Both container spaces are located in the upper 1 At

Tabit, such a close linguistic connection cannot be discerned. also Bernhardt (2017) for the case study Tabit. 3 The Sargas Silent Floor corresponds even more clearly to the work setting concentrated mental work, as the rule of silence is explicitly formulated here by the name. The Tabit Classic Office has a larger tolerance range in terms of the noise level rule and allowed behaviors. 2 See

8.2  The Production of Spatial Atmospheres of Work …

213

floors of the CWSs and separated from the other CWS areas, so that the users are shielded from the events in the other areas. The character of the space is already readable at the entrance door of the Sargas Silent Floor. The massive metal door is usually closed and separates the container space from the rest of the events in the CWS. At the Tabit Classic Office, the door is usually open. However, due to the separate entrances, the users do not notice anything of the events in the Creative Space even when the door is open. Concentrated mental work promoting symbolic-material arrangements Those spaces that allow for a peaceful co-activity are more clearly designed as work spaces in relation to the non-human space. They are characterized by the use of typical, mostly simple office furniture. Furnishing elements from the private and leisure area are largely avoided here. Even when desks are arranged in table groups, so that coworkers face each other, the need for personal space and privacy is met here: The tables offer a large work surface and are usually used by one person each.4 In addition, in both CWSs, external screens are placed on the fixed and (in Sargas at least partly) on the flexible work tables, which, in addition to their actual function as an extension and enlargement of the display area of the laptop, also simultaneously provide a visual protection from the opposite. In the Sargas Silent Floor, the plant wall and the columns also act as room dividers. The office workstations are characterized by simplicity and functionality. While in the Tabit Classic Office there are exclusively ergonomic office chairs of the same design, the seating options in the Sargas Silent Floor vary, as in the other open spaces, in terms of style and thus also in terms of ergonomics and comfort. Nevertheless, office chairs are more in use here than in the other open spaces. In terms of color and stylistic elements, both the Sargas Silent Floor and the Tabit Classic Office are designed with restraint, although both open spaces do not appear sterile. In the Tabit Classic Office, the simple and plain interior design and the dominance of the color white are interrupted by posters on the walls. In the Sargas Silent Floor, following the overall design concept, there are also natural and artistic elements, which in turn are designed in such a way that they support the processing of mental work. For example, the oversized molecular images on

4 Only

in one situation, when the Sargas Vibrant Floor was closed for an event, did it also happen that coworkers shared desks on the Silent Floor (cf. field notes BP17). In this case, however, the Silent Floor became a new space, which was accompanied by a different work setting. In addition to sharing the tables, it was then also possible, for example, to talk to each other in a whisper (cf. in detail Sect. 13.1.1).

214

8  Material Shape: Practices, Spaces and Atmospheres

the wall are black and white images that, despite their size, do not distract, but rather radiate calmness. The simple furniture, the restrained color design and the adoption of a conventional office aesthetics (especially in the case of the Tabit Classic Office) create a focused work atmosphere and make the spaces for concentrated mental work appear as “ecotopes of ‘mental’ activities” (R. Schmidt 2012, p. 153). Following ideas of the conventional office and the exhibition concept “White Cube” (cf. Sect. 2.1.3), the working subjects are conceived here as “quasi-bodyless, cognitive beings” (Prinz 2012, p. 263), whose creativity arises from a sensual neutrality (ibid., Bernhardt 2017, p. 57). The spatial organization creates a distraction-free and concentration-promoting environment and thus supports silent spatial practices, whereby interactions with each other are made more difficult in favor of the focused work atmosphere. Accordingly, the atmosphere of interpersonal communication created by the sociomaterial space is experienced by the users as quiet or concentrated (cf. Sects. 7.1.2 and 7.2.2). Besides desks and office chairs, other artefacts also support the processing of mental work: When darkness sets in, the desk lamps are often used in the Sargas Silent Floor. Their beam of light visually symbolizes the focus on one’s own work, by reducing the space to the illuminated workplace and letting the rest of the environment fade into the background. Despite the presence of co-present others, they can be easily ignored. As Schmidt (2012, p. 139) points out, such islands of light create an “atmosphere of focused attention” and intimacy (ibid.). At the same time, they are involved in practices of doing being busy and also reinforce the image of knowledge workers who are focused on themselves and their cognitive processes and do not want to be disturbed (cf. R. Schmidt 2012, pp. 139 f.). Break places adapted to the work setting In the spaces for concentrated mental work, social meeting points are largely avoided or the break places fit into the work setting and are less oriented towards interactions and longer stays. For example, there are no sofas or armchairs in the Sargas Silent Floor (unlike the Café and Vibrant Floor). In the Tabit Classic Office, the two sofas, which are designed in a simple and discreet way according to the office design, are positioned near the meeting rooms. They have mainly the function of waiting places for people who use the meeting rooms or for guests of coworkers and are rarely used as work places or places of exchange. Also, the kitchens, both self-service, are simple and functional. The kitchenette in the Tabit Classic Office is located in the back room and blends in with the overall design of the work area. The kitchen in the Sargas Silent Floor stands out more in contrast

8.2  The Production of Spatial Atmospheres of Work …

215

to the open space in terms of simplicity, as almost no stylistic elements such as plants and art were used here. Although the office kitchen is generally considered a place of exchange, this does not apply to those kitchens that are part of the work setting that support concentrated mental work and rely on quick and silent reproduction of work capacity5. Rules that promote concentrated mental work The spaces for concentrated mental work are characterized by coworkers who sit at their laptops, direct their gaze at the laptop or external screen and perform practices of doing being busy. They rarely engage in verbal exchange with the co-present others or absentees. Rather, the assumption here is that quietness is needed for concentrated mental work. Accordingly, the rule is to be considerate of each other and to behave quietly, so as not to disturb the others, so that the present ones can concentrate on their (laptop) activity (cf. Bernhardt 2017). The rules of quietness and mutual consideration are more or less vaguely formulated. How to behave is mainly perceptible in the bodily presence through the work setting and the atmospheres associated with it. At the Tabit Classic Office, there is a comparatively high degree of interpretation and action leeway and a tolerance for disturbances, insofar as teams also work here. Short conversations with each other or phone calls at the workplace, where, for example, the screen is required, are legitimate here to a certain extent in the sense of the practices of a conventional office. At the Sargas Silent Floor, on the other hand, the explicit rule of being quiet is defined by the name itself. Although this is the only one and there are no further explicit rules that further define the allowed (or forbidden) behavior in the open space, the rule of quietness is strictly observed by the users (which also indicates that the space and its atmospheres have an effect on the users in the bodily presence). In the Silent Floor, there is no talking and if it does happen, then in a whisper. For phone calls and longer conversations, the open space is usually left to conduct them in the stairwell or in the spaces for interaction. Nevertheless, there are also tolerance limits here: A “Hello” when answering a phone call (cf. interview Stefan, para. 26) or a 30-s phone call (cf. interview Sandro, para. 98) are allowed, as well as a conversation among coworkers in the evening or a conversation in a whisper in the self-service kitchen, as I experience them in the field.

5 For

the kitchen of the Sargas Silent Floor see in detail Sect. 13.1.

216

8  Material Shape: Practices, Spaces and Atmospheres

The quietness of the spaces for concentrated mental work becomes particularly clear when I come from the atmosphere of the spaces for interaction and immerse myself in the other atmosphere and feel the contrast (cf. Böhme 2013b, p. 145): So I keep noting the silence again and again in my observations, as in the following excerpt at the beginning of my field stay at Sargas: “I have now [from the café] gone to the Silent Floor. The contrast could not be greater. The silence is so deep that noises that would have gone unnoticed in the café stand out here. I myself squeak with my chair as I make room for someone, it is unpleasant to me. Someone coughs, someone leaves the room, the kettle is on. In the stairwell I hear conversations. […] There is more going on than in the Vibrant Floor this morning—in terms of the number of people, not the volume.” (Field notes BP02, para. 33)

I also notice that silence does not mean soundlessness (cf. Böhme 2013b, p. 145): Thus, the silence in the Sargas Silent Floor rises from a sound carpet of keyboard strokes, coughs, throat clearing, chair moving, footsteps, the hissing of the kettle from the self-service kitchen, etc. From this, a working atmosphere is formed, as Sargas coworker Stefan, who mainly works in the Silent Floor, notes: “That does not mean that it is COMPLETELY absolutely quiet as a mouse, there is always a bit of BASIC/ You can tell that work is being done” (interview Stefan, para. 26). The rule of being quiet has a regulating effect on the one hand: In its strict form as a ban on talking or at least as a request to exchange in a quiet tone or to leave the room for conversations with each other or for phone calls. At the same time, however, it also offers a space of possibility, not having to interact with the others, as Theo adds for the Tabit Classic Office: “Up there [note AB: Classic Office] it is a little quieter, (?especially) you are less addressed (laughs), less talk is done. And TODAY is such a day where I rather want silence” (interview Theo, para. 150). This becomes particularly clear when looking at the Sargas Silent Floor. Here you should not talk to anyone and at the same time you do not have to, as user Sebastian expresses: “If you don’t want to speak with anyone, you don’t speak” (interview Sebastian, para. 54). Contrary to a request for interaction with the co-present others, as it is inherent in the spaces for interaction, there is rather the silent agreement that no social obligations and norms of politeness have to be followed towards the others and that one can focus entirely on one’s own doing. The relief of not having to interact with the others is thus a prerequisite for concentrated mental work to take place. The rule of silence is subordinated to social conventions, such as greeting, in the Silent Floor as well (cf. interview Simon, para. 73). In other words: Here, coworkers can practice doing being busy without being involved in practices of doing being open, such as greeting and

8.2  The Production of Spatial Atmospheres of Work …

217

thus the possible opening of small talk. Although there is also a tolerance range here, as Serge says: “I mean, of course to say ,Hello’ and (1) there are only few people, it’s, it’s OKAY” (interview Serge, para. 146). In the Tabit Classic Office, which is less strictly designed for concentrated mental work compared to the Silent Floor, on the other hand, it is typical to greet into the room, in the sense of the norms of politeness of a conventional office. Creating a communal atmosphere At first glance, it seems that in those spaces whose symbolic-material design and rules regarding noise level make interactions difficult or hardly possible, a communal atmosphere and thus a sense of belonging among the co-present users can hardly arise. However, it is precisely this shared understanding among the coworkers that being active side by side without interaction with the co-present others is legitimized here, which is also communalizing. Likewise, the coworkers know that the exchange among themselves can take place in the other spaces of the CWSs.6 In addition, the co-present laptop workers, who perform (almost) silent practices of doing being busy with their bodies, laptops, keyboards, headphones and other artifacts as well as the furniture, contribute to a motivating and disciplining concentrated work atmosphere, which supports the focus on one’s own work and at the same time is again communalizing: In these spaces, the work is outwardly similar and creates a connecting monotony. With the spaces for concentrated mental work, a requirement for the primary function of CWSs, the provision of workspace, is materialized, namely to be able to work in peace for oneself in a distraction-free environment. The existence of such spaces is thus important for the functioning of the investigated CWSs as a whole, insofar as they also take into account the needs of people who seek out such spaces for work. At the Tabit Classic Office, community and interaction are also signaled by the non-human space. For example, the meeting rooms, which are connected to the open space, have glass walls, so that the events on the other side can be seen. There is also a whiteboard and a bulletin board that inform about events at the Tabit, among other things. In addition, there is a table in the entrance area, on which flyers, stickers and postcards from the Tabit and other initiatives with information and event announcements are displayed. Furthermore, not only the

6  In

addition to the spaces for interaction, also the staircases (in the form of random encounters or phone calls) or those spaces that support work-focused verbal exchange (in the form of meetings, video conferences or phone calls), such as the Tabit meeting rooms or the Sargas multifunctional space.

218

8  Material Shape: Practices, Spaces and Atmospheres

entrance door, but also the intermediate door between the two container spaces of the Classic Office is usually open. In the Sargas Silent Floor, such elements that signal community are missing. So far, it has been worked out that the spaces for concentrated mental work support concentrated mental work in their material form, and that communitization works less through interactions than through uniform practices of doing being busy and the shared knowledge about the communalizing place, which, however, also needs these spaces to function. The boundaries that come with the spaces for concentrated mental work are discussed in more detail in Sect. 13.1.1. For example, the work setting in its strict interpretation, as in the case of the Sargas Silent Floor, does not allow to communicate with others, for example, to address unspoken conflicts. A use limited to those spaces can also lead to coworkers having little contact with other users. In the spaces for interaction, a communal atmosphere and a sense of belonging, as the name suggests, are mainly created through social interactions. In the following, the material design of these spaces will be worked out in this regard and also the question will be pursued how it is possible here that not only interactive activities, but also working for oneself alongside each other, as in the spaces for concentrated mental work, are enabled.

8.2.2 Spaces for Interaction Those spaces that enable or promote getting into interaction among coworkers are located on the respective lower floors of the CWSs and are not as shielded as the spaces for concentrated mental work. Thus, the events in and in front of the Tabit Creative Space are also visible to passers-by, as well as the events outside Tabit can be observed by the coworkers. The Sargas Garden and often also the Café are crossed by the visitors of the Sargas House. The door of the Sargas Vibrant Floor is usually open and allows to get a glimpse of the events of the other spaces. The toilet of the Vibrant Floor is also used by the café and garden visitors. In the Tabit Creative Space as well as in the Sargas Café and Vibrant Floor there is a place (table or chest of drawers) for the display of flyers and advertising materials of the CWS, the users as well as other initiatives. Socially interactive symbolic-material arrangements The spatial arrangements of the spaces for interaction do not always clearly identify them as work spaces, as was made clear by the detailed case presentations in

8.2  The Production of Spatial Atmospheres of Work …

219

the previous chapter. Typical for these spaces is an aestheticized spatial design, in which design elements and artifacts from non-office social fields are taken up, such as the domestic living room, the café, the garden or the art. This reflects a general trend of creative-economic aestheticized office designs (cf. Sect. 2.1.3). These are more likely to be assigned to the leisure or private sphere than to the sphere of work and typical is their social character as retro or vintage. Thus, the office architecture contributes to an appealing, cozy and warm atmosphere. Together with stylistically contrasting, modern, usually simple office furniture and artifacts of work, such as laptop, notebook or headset, there is a mixing of work and non-work in relation to the non-human space. The material and color design (natural materials, especially wood, warm, stimulating colors) is more striking and stimulates the senses more strongly7. Accordingly, these spaces are arranged as “stimulation spaces” that offer diverse stimuli and encounters (cf. Reckwitz 2014, p. 329). The café tables of the Sargas Café and the Tabit Creative Space as well as the set of beer tables and benches of the Sargas Garden are designed for use by several people, whereby the number of present users usually exceeds the number of tables and thus makes sharing the tables necessary. This is associated with spatial tightness and less privacy. The tables have a special significance in terms of creating communal atmospheres. They provide smaller personal space compared to the tables of the spaces for concentrated mental work and the chairs are arranged sociopetally, allowing eye contact with the opposite. This lowers the barrier to start a conversation with co-present others significantly compared to those spaces whose work setting is oriented towards concentrated work. In the Tabit Creative Space as well as in the Sargas Café and Garden, wooden tables and chairs far from the typical office chair as well as sofas, swivel stools or armchairs are used, which are less concerned with ergonomics and invite to unconventional “casual” body postures: Thus, coworkers also sit with laptops positioned on their legs on the sofa or in the armchair, partly with raised feet (Bernhardt 2017, p. 61).8 An

7 The

atmospheres generated by the non-human space often have a synesthetic character, i.e. they are generated by different arrangements: For example, the warmth of the Tabit Creative Space or the Sargas Café is contributed by the wood of the furniture, the warm colors and the vintage furniture (cf. Böhme 2013b, p. 124). 8 The combination of armchairs or sofas (as artefacts of the domestic living room) and small tables or stools invites to put one’s feet up. This body posture is especially typical in the Tabit Creative Space. It conveys the impression that the coworkers feel at home (although they probably would not keep their shoes on at home) and give the living room or well-being atmosphere a special emphasis. As Prinz (2012, p. 264) notes, this body posture

220

8  Material Shape: Practices, Spaces and Atmospheres

intermediate position is taken by the Sargas Vibrant Floor, whose non-material space with a mix of vintage and conventional office furniture promotes interactive and individual, silent practices alike. There are desks there instead of wooden tables, as in the spaces for concentrated mental work. Some are centrally positioned and arranged sociopetally, thus also promoting the view of what happens in the space and the eye contact among each other. It also happens that two coworkers share a table (where they then seem to know each other more often and also interact more with each other). Besides, there are also desks that are oriented sociophugally towards the wall or window. These hardly allow eye contact and shield the users from the events of the open space, which can now only be perceived acoustically, but not visually. This makes social interactions with the co-present others more difficult and thus promotes withdrawal and privacy. In addition, the wall workstations have no visual distraction: The view away from the screen falls on the bare white, partly tiled wall. Different table sizes imply different behaviors. For example, a table with four chairs can be marked as occupied by one user by positioning his or her own work materials and other things accordingly, thereby increasing the barrier for another person to join (see Sect. 10.3.2). The large table in the Sargas Café, which offers space for nine people, could not be claimed as one’s territory by a single person. However, in my observations at the large table, I repeatedly notice that the selfpositioning is done in such a way that the personal space is maximized and thus the distance from each other is maintained as well as possible by the even distribution of the people around the table. Nevertheless, the users know that if they sit here, the probability is high that they will be in company. Thus, café worker Sheldon also gives this table the name “social table” (interview Sheldon, para. 59), while he sees the four-person tables in the café as tables for the more introverted among the café guests. The large table is also the place where the Community Breakfast, which was newly introduced by the CWS at the time of the study and organized every two weeks, takes place, where the table temporarily becomes a place of mutual exchange (see below Sect. 8.3). The garden of the Sargas, with its rows of tables and benches, reminiscent of a beer garden, implies an even greater openness for conversations, as user Sabine finds: “Yes, the tables are also, (2) uh (1) yes, stand together and you get more into a conversation with people, than if

is repeatedly found in the self-presentations of the creative class—this as a pose of casualness, which demonstrates the privilege of working in a relaxed office environment (Bernhardt 2017, p. 61).

8.2  The Production of Spatial Atmospheres of Work …

221

you (2) sit alone at the table, as it often is in the café” (interview Sabine, para. 50). In the Tabit Creative Space, the large table in the back kitchen area plays a special role. This is usually only used by the community manager as a workplace and otherwise serves mainly as a social meeting point and break place for the coworkers, especially at lunchtime9. Coworkers who bring their lunch from home or get take-away food from the surrounding area of the CWS gather at this table at noon to eat and chat with each other. It is not uncommon that a conversation is conducted across the entire table. Without agreement, one can sit down as an individual or group at the table and join the conversation by actively participating in the conversation or passively listening. The people at the table contribute to different degrees: There is consensus here that one can and should contribute to the conversation, but by no means has to. So I note about a lunch situation: “When I [come back from getting food], the dining table in the kitchen is full, mostly it’s the people from Thuban. However, one seat is still free, between Tom and Theo. I place myself there. Quite interesting: Actually, it is initially only a conversation between Ted and Tarek [note AB: employees of Thuban], Ted was on vacation in Colombia and was robbed. Everyone else at the table is listening, including myself. I find this quite convenient, so I can eat, listen, laugh. Is it the same for the others? In principle, they are apparently not much more talkative than I am. I think that’s great. At some point, Tarek asks me how it was in [my vacation in] New Zealand. I start the conversation with “extremely safe” and have the laughs on my side. Then I entertain the table with a few anecdotes. Then the other people at the table get more involved with their comments. Later, two groups are chatting, you somehow [find your way into the conversations]. There is no awkward situation. People leave, people come. You can join in, or not. I feel comfortable.” (Field notes AP22, para. 54)

That there is no compulsion to join in the table conversation, which is maintained by two people, I evaluate—first as a listening and eating participant of the conversation as “practical” or “great”. My participation in the conversation is initially limited to non-verbal communication and laughter. In the course of the conversation, my participation changes to active involvement in the conver-

9 Outside

of lunchtime and especially in good weather (which invites you to spend the lunch break outside the Tabit CWS), I have also experienced eating lunch alone at the table (see field notes AP13, AP15_2). In good weather, the sidewalk in front of the creative space was also used as an extension of the CWS to the place of the lunch break (see field notes AP26).

222

8  Material Shape: Practices, Spaces and Atmospheres

sation, initiated by Tarek’s question10 as a signal of doing being open, whereby the conversation is opened for me. Subsequently, the table conversation opens up through the participation of other people and develops into two parallel table conversations. The dynamics of the table conversations are high here. By positioning themselves at or near the large table, they become part of the social situation. The constellations of people are in constant motion: people who are done eating leave, new people come or people who are waiting at the coffee machine join in the conversation or the conversations. There is no table in this shape that is used for mutual exchange during lunch at the Sargas Café and Garden. Even the Social Table in the café has no exclusive function as a lunch table, where the coworkers can talk to each other. I reflect this during my field stay at Sargas: “The big [Tabit-] kitchen table at lunch connected the people. Here [note AB: at Sargas] it is much looser. There is also the big table [note AB: the Social Table] in the café and if there is something free there at lunchtime and you want to get in touch with other people, you sit down there, because there the probability is highest. Otherwise, the people spread out over the café and the garden, in small groups. You can also get in touch with them, but it does not happen as inevitably as at the big Tabit kitchen table. At Sargas, the community events are therefore of greater importance from my feeling [note AB: for creating a sense of belonging].” (Field notes BP18, para. 17)

In the Sargas Café and in the garden, and here also at the Social Table, rather the coexistence of eating and working, exchange in small groups and being for oneself applies. That one eats for oneself is also socially accepted, as the following statements by coworker Simon show (see Fig. 8.2). “This is another coworking situation. When EATING I can also take my laptop down and (3) totally nerdy check my emails while eating, which everyone does here. What in other situations would be perceived as inappropriate or (1) “absolutely NOT” (1), but here you can also walk around with the laptop in front of your (1) mouth all the time.” (interview Simon, para. 44)

Even when eating, the laptop is there, which underlines its central position (see Sect. 10.2.2). The separation of production and reproduction of labor power, and

10 At

another point, I note that Tarek—an employee of Thuban, but not a member of the operating team in the narrower sense—is “an important conversation keeper” (AP24, para. 9).

8.2  The Production of Spatial Atmospheres of Work …

223

Fig. 8.2   Lunch at the Sargas Café. (Photo: Simon)

thus the boundaries between work and life, are hereby abolished in the sense of self-rationalization. The laptop-centeredness and the interaction with the technical artifact, which at the same time goes along with the lack of interaction with other people present, Simon classifies as “totally nerdy”. He explains that this behavior is socially accepted in the Sargas Café. Even for eating, which typically not only has a pure reproduction function, but also represents a social situation with interaction character, one does not have to put aside one’s laptop here. Rather, the rule applies: Almost everything is allowed. While a fast food dish would fit the description of Simon, which not only was prepared quickly, but also invites to eat quickly, the photo shows a plate on which the food is appealingly arranged and looks healthy and freshly prepared. This is the lunch prepared in the Sargas Café. The food gives the impression that one takes time to eat it. In coworking, the implicit message of the photo is, good food is part of the work concept, in which work and non-work are closely linked, according to the motto: If there is already a blurring of work and life, then it should be pleasant and feel good.

224

8  Material Shape: Practices, Spaces and Atmospheres

Social meeting points Besides the tables and their arrangements, also break areas and related artefacts, such as a barista coffee machine, a sofa corner, a counter or a football table, foster the interactions among each other: These offer corresponding affordances and become social meeting points in everyday CWS life: Here users are supposed to get in touch with each other. These are also the places where accidental encounters often occur in everyday CWS life and where accelerated serendipity emphasized in the coworking discourse becomes effective. In combination with the aestheticized spatial design, office-remote artefacts and the table arrangements oriented towards interaction, the social meeting points contribute to the pleasant, cozy and stimulating atmosphere of the spaces for interaction. The sociomaterial space conveys an atmosphere of interpersonal communication that is experienced as lively or sociable and relaxed, where openness for social interactions prevails, as Sargas user Sheldon notes for the café: “it’s just quite open and relaxed” (interview Sheldon, para. 117) or Tabit user Theo for the Creative Space: “[D]own there it’s more like a little (1) uh (2) I don’t want to say that it encourages more talking, but a little (1) a little more relaxed, more like a little, (1) a bit more break atmosphere” (interview Theo, para. 204). This effect of space is also noticeable in one’s own well-being, when Tabit coworker Troy remarks that switching from the Classic Office to the Creative Space activates a different “mode”: “As soon as you are down there, then you are (1) in a, in a different mode. And then you are also (1) OPEN, meet someone at the coffee machine and talk to them” (interview Troy, para. 8). While in the case of Sargas the container spaces Garden and Café are generally relevant as social meeting points for the coworkers, it is more specific artefacts that are highlighted in the user interviews in the case of Tabit, above all the barista coffee machine of the Tabit Creative Space. The quality of the coffee is already emphasized on the website of the CWS as a superlative: “The best coffee in town for free @ the Tabit;)” (Tabit 2015). The sentence is accompanied by a wink, which indicates that the operators of the CWS are well aware that there are professionally run cafés in the city that have equally professional coffee machines with highquality coffee and trained staff who prepare it. However, this is not free of charge. The “best coffee in town” clearly refers to that of the barista coffee machine of the Creative Space and less to the standardized coffee of the capsule coffee machine of the Classic Office. The coffee machines are an example of the different affordance of concrete artefacts in relation to getting into interaction with each other.11 11 In

the case of Sargas, the contrast between the coffee machines in the serviced café and in the self-service kitchen of the Silent Floor is even stronger: The barista coffee machine

8.2  The Production of Spatial Atmospheres of Work …

225

Fig. 8.3   Barista coffee machine in the Tabit Creative Space. (Photos from left to right by users Troy, Timo and Toni)

With the capsule coffee machine of the Tabit Classic Office, the preparation of the coffee is comparatively simple and efficient: It only takes a few steps until the coffee is ready and the user can return to work. This makes the coffee machine well suited to the work setting of concentrated mental work. The preparation of the coffee only interrupts the work process briefly. Conversations at the coffee machine hardly occur, as it does not represent a social meeting point. The coffee is rather a part of doing being busy and is typically consumed while working at the place. The preparation of the coffee should, so the message of the machine seems, not distract from work and the users should be quickly back at their desk with the coffee. This fits with the fact that the coffee produced is standardized in terms of quality and taste. In the interviews, this coffee machine is hardly mentioned. In contrast, the professional barista coffee machine as the “heart” (interview Tabea, para. 41) or “connecting instrument” (interview Tom, para. 68) of the Tabit has a special significance. This has, unlike the one in the Classic Office, a complex structure (see Fig. 8.3).

in the Sargas café is even bigger than the one in the Tabit Creative Space. This is operated by the café staff and the coffee is chargeable here. The quality of the coffee is also positively highlighted by the users, but the coffee machine itself does not play a role in the interviews, as it is not operated by the users. In contrast, there is a capsule coffee machine that was not working at the time of the study in the self-service kitchen of the Sargas Silent Floor. In addition, there are a hand filter and packages with coffee or instant coffee that coworkers have brought along. The coffee machine or the coffee in the self-service kitchen is not or in the case of Scott and Sophie negatively addressed in the interviews (see Sect. 13.1).

226

8  Material Shape: Practices, Spaces and Atmospheres

Above the coffee machine hangs a laminated sheet with an operating manual, which explains the equally complex and, compared to the simple capsule machine, time-consuming preparation of the coffee, in which the users have to do various steps before they receive the product. Unlike the standardized coffee of the capsule machine, there is individual leeway regarding the strength of the coffee. However, its significance goes far beyond its actual use value, the production of high-quality coffee. In the elaborate preparation, the function of the coffee machine as a social meeting point is also revealed: Waiting for the coffee (and thus the formation of a queue at peak times) or when help is needed with the operation, give occasion to talk to other coworkers. The barista coffee machine was photographed by most of the interviewed coworkers for the interviews (see Fig. 8.3)—this in contrast to the capsule coffee machine in the Tabit Classic Office, which was never photographed. Following the photos, the special significance of the barista coffee machine is repeatedly emphasized in the user interviews, as by Till: “[T]his is a super cool coffee machine that makes good coffee. And that is VERY important. (2) You should not underestimate that. (1) So COFFEE for those who drink coffee, what good coffee does for (1) the work atmosphere and environment. (I: Mhm.) And especially that it is FREE. That is ALSO crucial. […] The other point is also that it is a PLACE where you have to do a bit of something and still EXCITING. And I always get into the conversations spontaneously THERE, when I’m, when I’m making coffee. Because you HAVE then also a bit of something, and there you have to lever around and the other one is WAITING then, there you can chat a bit with someone. (I: Mhm.) (1) That is actually the social meeting point, yes. You always say, uh, uh COFFEE KITCHEN, (I: Mhm.) COFFEE KITCHEN CONVERSATIONS. And that is really TRUE. So there, there a bit of this/ (1) If somewhere this spontaneous exchange takes place, then THERE. At the coffee machine.” (interview Till, paras. 45 ff.)

The quote sums up the advantages of the barista coffee machine of the Creative Space, which are emphasized by the users: the high quality of the coffee machine and the coffee, that the coffee is free of charge, the complex production process itself12 as well as, and probably most importantly, the significance of the coffee machine as a social meeting point. Coworker Timo mentions very similar aspects, while he underlines the special value that the coffee machine has for him

12 User

Theo even highlights the process of cleaning the barista coffee machine as “a very, very meditative work” (interview Theo, para. 76), which he likes to do and in which he can do something with his hands (cf. ibid., paras. 63 ff.)—unlike the mental work on the laptop.

8.2  The Production of Spatial Atmospheres of Work …

227

by emphasizing that he even started drinking coffee because of it (cf. interview Timo, paras. 44-46). In addition, Timo highlights the coffee machine as a status symbol—this in contrast to the “CAPSULE machine” in the Classic Office: “YES, I also find it something COOL, such a coworking space, that, that we have something like that and not just/ I mean, up there there is also a CAPSULE machine, uh that one, that one could have, if one wanted. But uh, I also find it something SPECIAL, like, like many other things there TOO, with the sofas and so. And uh yes, I liked that very much.” (interview Timo, para. 48)

The barista coffee machine in the Creative Space is “something SPECIAL” among other things, like the sofas, as Timo proudly emphasizes and what sets the Tabit apart from other CWSs (which have less special coffee machines). The barista coffee machine is highlighted here as an aesthetic artifact that has a high value of presentation (cf. Sect. 3.2.2). By speaking of “we”, Timo shows his identification as a member of the CWS. The barista coffee machine is thus a multifaceted, symbolic-material, social good for the users of the Tabit and invites to doing being open—unlike the capsule coffee machine of the Classic Office. Rules that foster social interactions and still allow concentrated mental work The spaces for interaction are experienced as social, lively spaces. Nevertheless, even in the Sargas Café as an extreme space for interaction, there are users who pursue more concentrated mental work for themselves. Regarding his intention to draw the following picture of the Sargas Café (which was created independently of the photo task, but was used for the interview), Sargas user Sheldon explains the communicative atmosphere and its generating elements (cf. Fig. 8.4): “I think it was just mainly the (1) angle and the atmosphere of what, ehm (1) it was/ Some guy was on his MacBook, as most people are here, […] And he looked very (1) deep in thought of what he was doing and that kind of inspired me to draw it. But it was also the way he was framed by the rest of the people in the room and it was quite, (1) quite busy. There WAS a person on the back of the room, eh this, this person, eh this girl, and she looked deep in thought as well. And then those people talking on the sides and they look like, I don’t know, it’s very eh/ (1) It’s just kind of social environment, it’s quite eh pulsing with energy.” (interview Sheldon, paras. 50 ff.)

Sheldon experiences a social, energetic atmosphere, which is underlined by conversing people. At the same time, the atmosphere is also shaped by people who are working on their laptops in a concentrated way, whose observation inspired

228

8  Material Shape: Practices, Spaces and Atmospheres

Fig. 8.4   Section Sargas Café. (Picture: Sheldon)

Sheldon to paint the picture. How does it work that both interactive activities and focused solitary work are possible at the same time here? Compared to the spaces for concentrated mental work, there is a higher tolerance range in terms of noise level in the spaces for interaction. Depending on the concrete spatial arrangement, social interactions are fostered to varying degrees. While at the Sargas Vibrant Floor the implicit rule applies that one can and may13 interact with physically present or absent others, the invitation to interact with the co-present others is even stronger in the other interactive spaces.14 Thus, Tabit user Thorsten emphasizes that more is allowed in the Creative Space than in the Classic Office as a space for concentrated mental work, which also has to do with the design of the non-human space:

13 In

contrast to the Silent Floor, conversations or phone calls take place directly at the workplace and in normal volume. Users of the Silent Floor also come here to make phone calls or hold a meeting. 14 As the example of the Sargas Café shows, the work setting here also prevents certain forms of interaction. For example, holding a phone call or a video conference with physically absent people in the café is hardly possible due to the constant noise level from music, voices, coffee machine sounds, etc.

8.2  The Production of Spatial Atmospheres of Work …

229

“DOWN [note AB: Creative Space] it is more like ALLOWED in quotation marks, that you INTERFERE and up there it is like: I am a little for MYSELF at my workplace and I don’t want to be disturbed here. So from the FEELING, I feel it a little like that, or. (I: Mhm.) And uh (3) Yes, I think also, that somehow/ The furniture and so makes it probably still out, how it is furnished. Up there it is more like a little OFFICE-like and down there it is more like a little (2) FREEstyle. (Thorsten laughs, I laugh with him)” (interview Thorsten, para. 77)

The spatial arrangements of the Sargas Café or the Tabit Creative Space do not provide any retreat possibilities in the Open Space. Here, the guiding principle is that forbearance is exercised (cf. Bernhardt 2017). However, there is no compulsion to interact. Although interactions here come about easily and one can and should talk, one does not have to interact with the co-present others—there seems to be a silent consensus about this. To this end, user Sheldon states in the further course of the conversation for the Sargas Café: “I like the way that (1) you do just/ people just sit down opposite you and either talk to you or not. […] It’s more awkward in other places, in other cafés if you were going to (1) ask if that chair was FREE, like people who are there are a bit more like […] “Get away from me.” (I: Mhm.) But like here you just, (1) that’s kind of expected. So it breaks down that boundary automatically. Everyone’s very, (1) yeah, everyone’s very eh interested in what you’re doing, ask/ eh more likely to ASK you questions about what you’re DOING. (I: Mhm.) Might see something you’re doing and be/ just (1) start a conversation about it. They might be working in a related field or they might NOT.” (interview Sheldon, paras. 54 ff.)

The direct comparison with a conventional café makes the peculiarities of the Sargas Café clear. Here, interacting with each other (between strangers and acquaintances) is as legitimate as working alongside each other. Sheldon describes the café as a place where the social distance between the co-present others is relatively low and a conversation among each other can easily come about, although it does not have to. While, as Sheldon notes, it is perceived as rather uncomfortable in conventional cafés to sit down at an already occupied table when a seat is free, this behavior is socially accepted and belongs to the expected behaviors in the Sargas Café (as well as in the garden and in the Tabit Creative Space). The own positioning at a table where someone is already sitting is acknowledged by the already seated ones, without having to negotiate this, which is also an expression of the communal atmosphere. A simple nod is often enough, at the Social Table in the Sargas Café this is sometimes not even necessary. Only in case of uncertainty, whether the seat one wants to sit on is free, one usually reassures verbally again.

230

8  Material Shape: Practices, Spaces and Atmospheres

Creating a working atmosphere The working atmosphere of the spaces for interaction is thus created by different components: First, there is the shared knowledge among the users that these are the spaces of a CWS, where primarily work is done. Although design elements and activities from the spheres of work and non-work mix here, these container spaces are nevertheless defined in terms of their core function as spaces for work, as Tabit operator Tabea puts it for the Creative Space: “People go there to work, not to fool around with each other” (interview Tabea, para. 79). At the Sargas Café, which is also open to the public, this becomes particularly clear—in contrast to the setting of a conventional public café: As part of the CWS, the activities in the café and the conversations among each other are often of a professional nature. Thus, Sheldon also emphasizes the content orientation of the conversations in the previous interview excerpt: One gets into conversation about what one does professionally (see Sect. 8.1.2). Second, as has been worked out in the preceding explanations, the work setting allows for individual (work-)activities to be performed. Laptops largely determine the arrangements and their atmospheric effect (see also below Sect. 10.2.2). This is associated with doing being busy performing people who are in corresponding interaction with the laptops and often in lacking interaction with the co-present others. While in other cafés in Salmstadt it is less appreciated that every visitor brings a laptop, the increased presence of laptops in the Sargas Café as a space of a CWS is not strange and is accepted (see interview Sandro, para. 60). For the work setting interaction, the execution of the above described practices of doing being busy or doing being open are of particular importance, which establish the balance between distance and closeness or between (solo-)work and community orientation in everyday CWS life. The spaces for interaction are characterized by greater openness compared to the spaces for concentrated mental work and change their character more often in this respect, for example when events take place there in the evening. The following will now focus on the (curated) events as rituals of reinforcing the sense of community.

8.3 The Production of Communal Atmospheres Through Events and Trust-Building Practices Beyond the work settings of interaction and concentrated mental work, a communal atmosphere is created and reinforced by events and joint activities or trustbuilding and strengthening practices and rituals. Events update the communal atmosphere in CWSs as recurring rituals and contribute to a sense of belonging.

8.2  The Production of Spatial Atmospheres of Work …

231

An atmosphere of communitization is characterized by trust (cf. Orel and Alonso Almeida 2019; Rus and Orel 2015), for which certain practices and rituals are significant. These elements of a doing being open in a broader sense are also discussed in more detail below.

8.3.1 Events Doing being open does not only happen spontaneously in the stairwell, in the spaces for interaction at social meeting points or during the lunch ritual, but also plays a central role in the context of various (curated) event formats. The CWS events are important rituals (cf. Blagoev et al. 2019) for updating and consolidating the CWS community and a related communal atmosphere (cf. Julmi 2015, p. 163). By actively participating in events as part of the engaging, a sense of belonging or sense of community is strengthened (cf. Garrett et al. 2017). The events usually take place in designated event areas, such as the 4th floor of Sargas or in the spaces for interaction—often in the evening. In this respect, the settings and atmospheres of the spaces for interaction change from work spaces to event spaces. Thus, Tabit user Thorsten contrasts the transformation of the Creative Space with a conventional office that empties in the evening. Here, on the other hand, there is a “transition time between work and events” (interview Thorsten, para. 134), during which the composition of the people changes. This creates a new space, whose character Thorsten experiences as a “different mode”, namely the “EVENT mode” (ibid.). Instead of leaving the office after finishing work, as in a conventional office, the new space and its atmosphere invite Thorsten, as he explains further, to “STAY” and make him curious about the event (cf. ibid.). This is associated with a change of roles from the working coworker to the event visitor, without changing the place (cf. also the user perspective in Sect. 11.2). In both CWSs studied (as well as in CWSs in general) there are different forms of events that can be attended by the coworkers to a large extent.15 Many

15 In

general, in the CWS context, a distinction can be made between events that are organized by external groups, associations, organizations, etc., and for which spaces of the CWS are rented, events that are organized by the operators themselves, and events that are organized by the coworkers. For all events, and thus also for the external ones, a fit to the respective orientation of the CWS typically applies—as is the case with the CWSs studied. Not all external events are charged for. In both operating cases, the CWSs also support certain non-profit organizers by letting the spaces free of charge or for a small fee. For the events

232

8  Material Shape: Practices, Spaces and Atmospheres

of these events offer potential for networking among the coworkers and other participants (cf. e.g. interview Sina, para. 111). Important in terms of strengthening the sense of belonging (together) are especially those social events organized by the operators within the framework of curating community, which are primarily designed for the coworkers. Tabit operator Tobias sees this as the core of coworking: “It’s the community events that take place. It’s uh the, the, the breakfasts, the lunches, the coffee machine talks, the/ (1). Pff. THAT’s the coworking” (interview Tobias, para. 41). The community events are staged events, i.e. the events take place because the CWS operators ensure that they take place in the course of curating community (cf. Betz et al. 2017, p. 1). Tom, the community manager of Tabit, understands them in this context as a “tool”, i.e. as a tool of curating, to connect the people in the CWS (cf. interview Tom, para. 21). Typical for these events is that, although they are formally organized within the framework of curating, they are also characterized by informality, in terms of the concrete course and the contributions from the coworkers (cf. Blagoev et al. 2019). Participation in them is voluntary and there are hardly any formal participation barriers. Only events with limited places or a participation fee require a formal registration in Sargas. The curated events have different focuses: While some are more about working in the sense of professional networking or sharing professional knowledge and learning from each other, other events are more open and primarily designed for the purpose of creating closeness and communitization. Here, it is mainly about getting to know each other or exchanging ideas among the coworkers. The first category includes, for example, the Lightning Talk (cf. field notes AP22), which was newly introduced during the field stay at Tabit. This format creates a stage in the evening in the Creative Space, around which the sofas and armchairs of the sofa corner and additional chairs are set up. The course of the event

organized by the operators, it is necessary to differentiate further whether they are events that are aimed at a broader public or a specific target group, such as in Sargas e.g. the artists, or whether they are events organized within the framework of curating community that are specifically designed for the coworkers (although they are often also open to others). The former, like the external events, also allow for openness to the outside and the possibility for outsiders to get to know the CWS. Events formally organized by the coworkers are comparatively rare in the cases studied: For example, in the case of Tabit, a lunch event was organized by the start-up of coworker Tamara. In the case of Sargas, coworker Serge tells me that the community dinner was initially an initiative of the coworkers. For activities and rituals initiated by the coworkers themselves, which have a more informal character, see Sect. 11.2.

8.3  The Production of Communal Atmospheres Through Events …

233

is comparatively rigid: Short presentations are given, in which the speakers (coworkers as well as external guests) have 5 min to talk about a topic of their free choice—such as introducing themselves or their company, a product, an idea, a technique, etc. This is followed by five minutes of discussion. Finally, there is an apéro, which serves for exchange, asking questions and networking. I notice the relaxed atmosphere already during the presentations, as I record in the field notes: “The presentation is really ‘nice’ or ‘pleasant’ (I can’t think of a better word). It’s not about giving the best presentation of all time, the audience is not strict and not all speakers are practiced with the necessary skills (starting from things like not standing in the projector image or keeping the time). Humor is well received by the audience and is also often used by the speakers, in the question round there are always questions asked […] In such an environment I would also [present] immediately. […] It takes a little too long, as not everyone sticks to the 5 minutes, but it doesn’t get boring. I laugh a lot, the others from the audience too. The atmosphere is relaxed.” (Field notes AP22, para. 93)

A curated event of the second category, which follows a more open format and has less work than rather communitization as its focus, is the Tabit Apéro, which I participate in during my field stay (cf. field notes AP14). Here, the operators invite to an open exchange at the end of the day with snacks, wine and beer. There is no agenda for this format. The practice of doing being open is actionand conversation-guiding for the course of the evening. In addition to the coworkers and members of the operating companies, people from the extended network of the CWS also come. The event takes place in the Creative Space and, due to the good weather, increasingly shifts to the outdoor space in front of it. The conversations take place in small groups. As I note in my field notes, the topics of the conversations are diverse and often revolve around work-related issues. In both CWSs studied, the format of the communal meal as a ritual for creating closeness and thus communitizing atmospheres is used: Both in Tabit and in Sargas, breakfasts are organized by the operators, which serve as an exchange between the coworkers. In Sargas, the Community Breakfast was just introduced during the field stay. The Community Breakfast is intended to create the opportunity to get in touch with the other participants and get to know each other.16 In perspective, the event should also serve to get feedback from the coworkers on

16 In

this regard, the event description of a corresponding Facebook event says: “Sargas’ Community Breakfast is about to get to know each other better, share idea’s [sic!], connect and enjoy the food” (Sargas 2016b).

234

8  Material Shape: Practices, Spaces and Atmospheres

the CWS (cf. interview Samuel_1, para. 146). At a Community Breakfast that I attend, coworkers, members of the Sargas team and people who work for Sargas, as well as a friend of the operators are present (cf. field notes BP13). The meal takes place in the Sargas Café at the Social Table and is accompanied by a joint table conversation. A total of eleven people participate in the Community Breakfast. The café is open as usual during breakfast. All participants introduce themselves and tell something about themselves. Community Manager Samuel plays a central role in this respect, insofar as he, as I note in the field notes, “gives impulses several times that a conversation arises between those present” (field notes BP13, para. 6). Samuel repeatedly initiates conversations and addresses questions to the participants. I also notice that two coworkers take over the (informal) moderation of the table talk, ask questions and show interest (cf. ibid., para. 11), i.e. practice doing being open. In addition to the biweekly Community Breakfast, which, despite the relatively open format, mainly includes work-related topics, the Community Dinner takes place in the alternating week. Here, work topics recede into the background, although they are also part of the table conversations. The event is also organized by the operators, whereby it is mainly about coordinating the voluntary cooks and helpers and supporting them during the evening. Joint preparation, cooking and cleaning up of the food by volunteers (coworkers and/or members of the operator team or people from the wider network) is an important part of the ritual: At least two people, who do not have to know each other, cook together for about twenty participants. This includes shopping, distributing the food and cleaning up the kitchen (where I am also once a voluntary co-cook, cf. field notes BP09). The others are invited to help with the preparation. At the Community Dinner, in addition to the communal meal, performances, discussions or joint music making are also on the agenda, work topics play a minor role. The whole Sargas Café is involved in the event: Cooking is done in the open kitchen, eating at the tables, after the meal chairs are moved together to form a circle. I note about such a circle after the meal: “Two people each (and not always the same ones) have a guitar and play together. There is also a jew’s harp and a rattle going around. Clapping and stomping in rhythm are also popular means, so everyone can join in. The initiative was also taken by a woman during the meal. She started to knock rhythmically and everyone joined in. This was quite overwhelming for me. The good mood inevitably transfers automatically. […] I listen, I observe, I knock along. The mood is good, exuberant.” (Field notes BP09, para. 3)

8.3  The Production of Communal Atmospheres Through Events …

235

The “good, exuberant” communal atmosphere is shaped in this case by the joint music making and affects me. In this situation, the CWS is primarily a communitizing space, its function as a work space is not relevant at the moment.

8.3.2 Trust-Building Practices and Rituals The atmosphere of the community is characterized by trust (cf. Orel and Alonso Almeida 2019; Rus and Orel 2015). In this regard, I note during my second visit to Sargas during my stay on the Vibrant Floor: “Behind me, the Sargas team is sitting in a group of three at a […] table group and is having a meeting. […] The other four coworkers present are working quietly, as am I. The meeting is about the finances of the café. […] They are quite open, I think to myself, instead of retreating to the meeting room, they talk in the middle of the room. The coworker in front of me at the window is more on the move than at his place, the first time he still locked his PC, now not. The basis of trust among those present in the space seems to exist.” (Field notes BP00.2, para. 42)

Various trust-building and reinforcing practices and rituals can be identified in the examined CWSs. First, it can be observed again and again that coworkers leave their laptop and other personal items on their workplace for a foreseeable time, such as the lunch break, when they are not present.17 An increase of this is the unlocked laptop, which gives insight into the open screen and would allow foreign access to laptop contents. The phenomenon of leaving personal things behind in absence can be observed in all those open spaces that are exclusively used by the coworkers, and in which secondary territories can thus be formed at least (cf. Sect. 3.3.2).18 Second, I regularly experience in the field that in the open space—here mainly in the spaces for interaction—users as well as members of the operating team let the co-present coworkers participate in their meetings, phone calls or video conferences, instead of using retreat spaces such as the Sargas multifunctional space

17 Which

at the same time marks a flex desk as occupied territory even in absence (cf. Sect. 10.2). 18 The seats of the Sargas Café with its public character, on the other hand, are occupied as tertiary or public territories. As a strategy to keep a seat occupied during longer absence, I experience, for example, that a user in the Sargas Café asks the unknown table neighbor if she could watch over the personal things during her own absence (cf. field notes BP07).

236

8  Material Shape: Practices, Spaces and Atmospheres

or the Tabit meeting rooms for this purpose. In doing so, they accept the risk of sharing confidential information with the coworkers present. Third, the atmosphere of trust is also underpinned by the operators in the context of curating community, as there are no explicit access controls in both CWSs: Thus, the premises of the CWSs are freely accessible during opening hours in both cases examined, without having to identify oneself as a coworker. Since the WIFI passwords are posted and the flex desks are marked as such and also because of the relatively high fluctuation due to the flex-desk memberships, there would be the possibility that people without CWS membership could go unnoticed in the areas reserved for coworkers. Another sign of the trust that is placed by the operators is the trust box for drinks, which is typical for CWSs and which is used in the Tabit Creative Space, but also in the Sargas Café, when it is closed. Tabit operator Tabea takes a photo of the drinks fridge and the trust box for the interview—a simple bowl that gives open insight and access to the money (see Fig. 8.5). Tabea explains: “There we have the public […] drinks, where you can help yourself from the fridge, where we then actually appeal to the TRUST that people also pay, there you can see the cash register. Uh, that’s just something where/ We’re just not able to control everything and then it’s just important that people especially there (?also) perceive it themselves and are honest and so on.” (interview Tabea, para. 49)

Fig. 8.5   Trust box (marked) and drinks fridge in the Tabit Creative Space. (Photo: operator Tabea)

8.3  The Production of Communal Atmospheres Through Events …

237

Trust, so the message, is an important component of the coworking concept. That trust is placed by the operators is also shown by the fact that in Tabit not only the capsule, but also the barista coffee machine (with a comparatively high exchange value) can be operated by the coworkers themselves and thus it is accepted that something could break, the coffee machine could be neglected or excessively much coffee could be consumed if handled incorrectly. In the case of Sargas, however, there is also an explicit rule that serves as a ritual for building trust: New coworkers only receive the key code for the door of the Silent Floor after one month of membership, so that they can use it outside of opening hours. In the first month, they have to leave the Open Space together with the last coworker who knows the key code. This rule is intended to ensure that new coworkers can be trusted.

8.4 Intermediate Conclusion: The Material Shape of Coworking Spaces and the Role of Curating This chapter showed how coworking is concretely shaped in everyday life and how different spaces of work or community are constituted through the sociomaterial space and its atmospheres as well as the associated rules and practices of creating proximity or distance. As it became clear, this happens in different ways for the work settings Interaction and concentrated mental work. Table 8.1 gives a summary of the points addressed for the two work settings. Although the present users are also involved as acting subjects in the constitution of the spaces and atmospheres, which will be the focus of the following chapter, it should be emphasized again at this point that curating as aesthetic work and the associated material and social strategies are significant in relation to the generation of settings and atmospheres of work as well as communitization. With regard to the organizational strategies of managing communal atmospheres presented in Sect. 4.3, it becomes clear that the corresponding strategies ((1) symbolic-material design of the non-human space, (2) deliberately used rituals and (3) rhetoric) also apply in the CWS context: First, the non-human space is pre-arranged with regard to its perception and use. That the creation of atmospheres within the framework of material curating is also somewhat conscious to the operators becomes apparent when Tabit operator Tabea, for example, adds with regard to the design of the Creative Space that a “cozy” or rather “WARM atmosphere” should emerge through the spatial design (cf. interview Tabea, para. 82). Or when Sarga’s community manager Samuel explains that the use of plants and the constant change of the arrangements con-

238

8  Material Shape: Practices, Spaces and Atmospheres

Table 8.1   Work settings concentrated mental work and interaction in comparison

Work setting

Concentrated mental work Interaction

Separation or mixing of work Focus on work and non-work Produced behaviors

Mixing of work and nonwork

Working on one’s own on a Working on one’s own on laptop, typically work-related a laptop, interactive tasks, work and non-work (reprotasks duction of labor power, leisure)

Non-human space: Symbolic- Primarily office furniture material design

Increased presence of furniture and artifacts from non-office areas: living room, café, art, garden Social character: Retro, vintage

Non-human space: potential Distraction-free environment Table arrangements: prefor stimulation of environdominantly sociopetal, howmental qualities ever: plenty of space, visual protection ➜ privacy Subtle colors, dominance of white

Stimulating environment Table arrangements: predominantly sociopetal Warm, stimulating colors, natural materials

Atmosphere created by nonhuman space

Focused Rather conventional office atmosphere

Atmosphere of interpersonal Quiet, concentrated communication

Cozy, warm, stimulating, pleasant/appealing/nice Rather unconventional office atmosphere: living room atmosphere, café atmosphere Lively, sociable

Temporal change (space)

Stability

Generated impressions of movement (subject)

Large personal space—width Small personal space—narConsistency rowness Variety, stronger dynamics

Generated feelings (subject)

Concentration, focus, work mood

Well-being, creativity, openness for interaction But also: concentration, focus, work mood

Rules

Quietness, consideration

Indulgence

The work setting determining Doing being busy practices of creating proximity or distance

Change

Doing being open, but also doing being busy

8.4  Interim Conclusion: The Material Shape of Coworking Spaces …

239

tribute to a relaxed feeling and thus to a cozy atmosphere (cf. interview Samuel_2, para. 15). Second, social strategies of curating community in the form of events are shown as consciously used rituals, trust-building practices and rituals, or the increased performance of doing being open by the members of the operating teams, which thus promote a communal atmosphere. It can be observed that the operating teams of both CWSs take on the role of visionaries (Merkel 2015, p. 128), who focus on curating community (cf. Sect. 4.2). Another ritualized instrument of social curating of community, which is not discussed here, is the tour through the CWS, which often represents the first contact between interested parties and CWS. Coworking hosts use this to produce certain communal atmospheres (cf. de Vaujany et al. 2019). As Garrett et al. (2017, p. 830 f.) note in their study, a certain vision of community in the CWS is also conveyed during the tour through the CWS. And third, as part of social curating, a corresponding rhetoric that linguistically constructs community also comes into play: the self-presentations of the CWSs, whether on the website, in the e-mail newsletter or in social media, contribute to a curated image of the community, as discussed in more detail in Sect. 13.3.2. There it is also shown that the management of communal atmospheres within the framework of curating goes even further and focuses on the staging of the authentic communal atmospheres. Now the question for the following chapter is how these curated spaces of CWSs are explored from the perspective of the users in everyday life and how the coworkers in turn constitute suitable work and community spaces for themselves.

9

Subject Perspective I: The Entry into the Coworking Space

In the following chapters, the perspective of the users as spatially acting and bodily sensing subjects is now taken up and traced. It is discussed how the coworkers develop the CWS spaces and atmospheres for themselves and constitute their own spaces and atmospheres of work (Chap. 10) resp. communitization (Chap. 11) for themselves. For this purpose, it is first explored how the users found their way into their CWS and how it came about that they work there (and not in another CWS). As already discussed in Sect. 2.1.4 in general with regard to the subjectied labor power, the majority of the interviewed coworkers also did not have their workplace (completely) predetermined, which entails corresponding degrees of freedom in the spatial-temporal design of their own work. Thus, six of the interviewed Tabit coworkers and eleven coworkers of Sargas were self-employed or worked remotely for a company, a start-up or an organization that gave them corresponding freedom in the spatial design of their work at the time of entry into the CWSs.1 Furthermore, there is a start-up founder among the Tabit respondents who, together with her start-up partners, made the decision to relocate the company headquarters to Tarfstadt into Tabit. Three of the interviewed Tabit users and one Sargas coworker came to the CWS because of a job offer from a start-up or company already situated in the CWS. For these users, the CWS itself did not make the difference to work there, but rather the job offer.2 At the same time, it is 1 These

persons were not involved in a work team on site at the time of entry into the CWS, but mostly worked for and with external absent persons or companies or institutions. 2 The perception of the (future) employer can be closely linked to that of the CWS, as can be seen from Timo’s quote, an employee of the Tabit operator company Thuban: “Thuban and Tabit are so merged, so they belong together, Thuban also initiated it. And I really liked the whole VALUE SYSTEM and uh the atmosphere there” (interview Timo, para. 5). © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 A. Bernhardt, Coworking Atmospheres, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41193-0_9

241

242

9  Subject Perspective I: The Entry into the Coworking Space

open to each of them from the perspective of the companies to work also outside the CWS at other locations. The previously mentioned interview partners have in common that they have voluntarily chosen to work in the CWS—either as part of a job offer or that they actively looked for a workplace for themselves or their start-up. In contrast, there is a coworker in the Tabit who is an employee of a company that works closely with the operator company Thuban: Tristan did not freely choose Tabit as his workplace, but rather work-organizational advantages due to the close contractual relationship with Thuban suggested that he works at the same location—this also before Tabit was founded. This user interview is therefore excluded from the following explanations of this chapter, but will be used again and again as a contrast interview for the following chapters. The group of solo self-employed, start-up founders and decentralized workers are particularly subjectified workers. As has already been worked out in general, CWSs as institutionalized workspaces support the subjectified workers in solving their space problems (cf. Sect. 2.1.4). In the following, it will be worked out in more detail which concrete motives and advantages the interviewed users associate with working in the CWS and what previous experience they had in relation to coworking before entering the CWS (Sect. 9.1), how they became aware of Sargas resp. Tabit and how the decision ultimately fell in favor of Sargas resp. Tabit when choosing from alternative CWSs (Sect. 9.2). The basis for the following explanations are the corresponding passages in the user interviews.

9.1 Motives and Advantages for Working in the Coworking Space The following explanations give an overview of the motives for working in the CWS and the associated advantages, which the interviewed coworkers connect with working in the CWS (as an alternative to working from home, in a café or own office). Here, the focus of the analysis is on those users who actively searched for their CWS. For those people who came to their CWS through a job offer, this was the main reason, although they also see some advantages in terms of working in the CWS. A central motive for working in the CWS is the separation of the places of work and non-work and thus the active temporal-spatial limitation of the two

9.1  Motives and Advantages for Working in the Coworking Space

243

spheres of life3: The CWS helps the coworkers to structure their own work and to set active boundaries: “And that’s what’s important to me at the moment, that I have this FRAME, that I say: ‘Now I’m going to work. And now I’m at home’” (interview Thomas, para. 5). The CWS creates for the coworkers a “work environment” (interview Till, para. 7, 43, 123) that feels like work and motivates them to work: “That’s one of the reasons for coming at all, is, (1) there [note AB: in Tabit] I work at least” (interview Theo, para. 137). The CWS as an institutionalized workspace takes over the function of a conventional office as a “PLACE to go every day” (Scott), as becomes clear from the following quote from the interview with the Salmstadt newcomers Scott and Sophie: “Sophie: We ARE here in Salmstadt just for two MONTHS. (I: Mhm.) And, and we’re currently living in a, (1) in a van. (I: Mhm.) Eh in America. And we are always moving around, working from cafés. So now that we are here we wanted to work, (1) FEEL that we had (1) an office. (1) //Because/ // Scott: //Like a// PLACE to go every day. Sophie: Yeah, a place to go every day. Because it’s really cool to work from cafés, but we are tired to wake up every day and think, “Okay, where can we WORK?” Decide. Look for a place, check if they have good Internet. So now that we are in a city totally established for two months (1) eh we wanted to look for a place where (1) we could feel that it’s our office.” (interview Scott_Sophie, paras. 61 ff.)

Although Scott and Sophie work decentrally and are spatially mobile as digital nomads, a fixed workplace for the limited time they are staying in Salmstadt is still important to them. The CWS offers corresponding spatial structures that support the users in their work. This way, they do not have to make new decisions every day regarding the choice and suitability of a workplace. The formation of preferences and routines of settling and setting up makes it easier to constitute one’s own workspaces and atmospheres. In addition, Sophie emphasizes the emotional significance of a fixed workplace: Her workplace must feel like an office— her office. The desire for the spatial separation of work and non-work is typically also associated with negative experiences that were made while working from home. For example, Sargas user Simon tells of his experience of the spatial blurring of work and life at home: 3 Although,

as became clear from the previous explanations, there can be a mixing of the two spheres on site. How the users deal with this in different ways will be examined in more detail in Chap. 10.

244

9  Subject Perspective I: The Entry into the Coworking Space

“This year (1) IS my stay-at-home year. And I was at home for the first six months (1) ALWAYS. Because I worked at home. And I realized that it was not only (1) exhausting, but also mentally (laughs) unhealthy. (laughs) For me, to always be in the same four walls. And that, uh, yes, the, the, the professional life and the private life ALWAYS mix, because then you either can NEVER really be effective, or you are never private. (I: Mhm.) And I find/ FOUND this mixture too exhausting. (I: Mhm.) And now I have SINCE uh (2) three weeks or so, or since, I moved, and since then I have SWORN to myself that I will not work at home anymore. And I feel much better.” (interview Simon, para. 11)

Simon, who usually travels a lot for his job, describes here how he experienced half a year of working from home. The fact that not only his private life took place at home, but also his professional life in the sense of working, brought negative experiences for him. He uses the apparently familiar discourse of the blurring of work and life, although he uses his own terms—“the professional life and the private life”—for it. In this quote, Simon uses strong and absolute words in relation to his own well-being, which make his situation seem unbearable. He describes his situation at home not only as “(too) exhausting”, but he pathologizes it as “mentally unhealthy” (although he defuses this by a laugh of embarrassment). He emphasizes that he does not want to experience the intolerable situation at home again by making a vow to himself not to work at home anymore (which he again formulates absolutely). Working from home and the associated mixing of work and life entail further disadvantages. Some coworkers find that they cannot discipline themselves to work at home and are easily distracted from work. In the CWS, the working other coworkers exert a social control by their presence, which contributes to self-discipline (cf. Baumann 2013; Blagoev et al. 2019, p.908 f. speak of co-discipline in this regard), although there are no direct sanctions in case activities of non-work would be pursued. Tabit coworker Thorsten summarizes his motivation to work in the CWS as follows: “AT HOME it is somehow very isolated. You are more fo/ So you are FOCUSED on the work. (I: Mhm.) But (1) you are actually also EXACTLY the same, so if you are not disciplined, you are just as quickly distracted, I think. (1) And that’s why I was looking for something where I can go out and go somewhere and be there and then work there and then like the spatial separation of work and (1) and NOT work. (2) And that was important to me at the beginning. (1) That’s why I looked for the coworking space.” (interview Thorsten, para. 21)

9.1  Motives and Advantages for Working in the Coworking Space

245

Thorsten points out here a paradoxical situation when working from home: On the one hand, there is no social distraction at home4, which enables focused work. However, this only works, according to Thorsten, if one is sufficiently disciplined. Lack of self-discipline, on the other hand, leads to quick distraction from work, insofar as areas and activities of non-work (household, private phone calls, etc.) come into focus. This was the reason for Thorsten to look for a CWS to work in and, associated with that, the separation of the places of work and non-work. The main meaning that the users attribute to the CWS lies clearly in its primary core function for all of them: The CWS is a place of work, which is designed in such a way that one’s own work spaces and atmospheres can be easily constituted. The regular leaving of one’s own apartment and going to a workplace where other people also work have a special value for the subjectified workers. Sargas user Sina also goes to the CWS mainly to escape the isolation of working from home and to have a “work environment” that is clearly separated from her home: “And then of course I didn’t want to sit around at HOME alone. I can’t imagine that for myself at ALL. So I need this, this connection and just people around me. So whether I now look for or use this contact is another question, but I have to somehow get out of HOME, I need a different work environment. And can then also finish with it, when I go back home.” (interview Sina, para. 11)

The importance of social contacts in the CWS refers in her case to the co-presence of other coworkers as part of the work environment that motivates to work and, in the course of self-control of the subjectified worker, leads to self-discipline. While for Sina the presence of the other users is important, without necessarily seeking contact with them, the establishment of new contacts with other people in the case of the couple Scott and Sophie is an important motive for working in the CWS: “[I]t gives you a lot of facilities in terms of (1) knowing people and feeling that you are not alone” (Sophie, interview Scott_Sophie, para. 65). Scott and Sophie also visit the CWS to avoid being socially isolated. They belong to those Sargas users who are new to Salmstadt when they enter the CWS. The CWS creates in its second core function as a place of communitization pos-

4 Which

would be different if children or other family members were present during the day, who would demand his attention—a problem that was solved by other users in corresponding situations by visiting the CWS. Distraction by the presence of relatives or their care can thus pose further challenges for working from home. However, this is not an issue for the interviewees.

246

9  Subject Perspective I: The Entry into the Coworking Space

sibilities to make new contacts with other people and to build up a social network (see Chap. 11). In this respect, it acts as an “anchor point for newcomers” (Müller 2018, p.231). Members of start-ups also emphasize the importance of social contacts in the CWS. Thus, the CWS offers the advantage compared to an own office that the work team is embedded in a larger social context. In the CWS, the team members also have contact with other coworkers outside their work team (see interview Troy, paras. 21 f.). Another anticipated benefit of working in a CWS is the establishment of professional contacts and finding of contracts. For example, coworker Samantha, who is new to Salmstadt, hopes to find new work in Sargas while she finishes the contracts for her old client in her home country (see interview Samantha, para. 19). The CWS is considered in these cases as a platform that provides access to new professional contacts, contracts or work in general. Another advantage of CWSs is the flexible provision of (shared) professional office infrastructure at comparatively low costs.: “It [Sargas] is ultimately the provider of a workplace at low-cost conditions” (interview Stefan, para. 97). The CWS offer includes much more than the actual workplace. The coworkers can access the entire CWS offer, such as meeting rooms, kitchen, printer, etc. This is also an important advantage over renting one’s own office, especially for solo self-employed or small businesses, as coworker Tamara highlights for her start-up: “If we had come to Tarfstadt now, we would have had to organize office furniture, provide the whole infrastructure, internet, this and that and that is still time-consuming” (interview Tamara, para. 5). CWSs have the advantage of flexible use, as long as they fit one’s own work situation, as Sargas user Sabine emphasizes again: “[F]or NOW in the situation I find it perfect. Because I am so independent somehow. So I don’t have these big (1) running costs. (I: Mhm.) And still have a possibility to work like this” (interview Sabine, para. 21). The fact that the work in the CWS is flexible and without long-term, binding commitments, suits the subjectified workers with precarious employment relationships and uncertain order situations (cf. Merkel and Oppen 2013). Table 9.1 summarizes again the motives and associated advantages for working in the CWS for the interviewed users. Regarding the previous experience with coworking, it should be noted that almost all interviewed coworkers are already familiar with the coworking concept in general before they come to Sargas or Tabit. For Sargas coworker Stefan, there are three options that are available to him as a solo worker in terms of workspaces: “I work then ALONE and I/ From where does one work alone? You can do that from home or in an OFFICE or in a coworking [space]” (interview Stefan,

9.1  Motives and Advantages for Working in the Coworking Space

247

Table 9.1   Motives and advantages for working in the CWS

Motives and advantages for working in the CWS

Tabit

Sargas

Organization of one’s own work/separation of the places of work and non-work

Thomas, Toni, Tamara, Tarek, Sebastian, Stefan, Samir, Till, Theo, Thorsten Simon, Sheldon, Sina, Scott/Sophie, Sandro

Social contacts: Getting out of Thomas, Toni, Tamara, Till, isolation (working from home) Theo, Thorsten

Stefan, Scott/Sophie, Sina, Sabine

Social contacts: finding new contacts

Samantha, Serge, Samir, Scott/Sophie

Low/tolerable costs/provision of infrastructure

Thomas, Troy (Start-up) Stefan, Sabine Tamara (Start-up), Till, Theo

Professional contacts/finding contracts

Tarek

Samantha, Sandro

(Job offer/employer in CWS)

Troy, Timo, Tanja

Serge

para. 7). Especially in Salmstadt, visiting a CWS seems to be an obvious option, as user Sina also makes clear: “Well, I don’t really know where else to go if you don’t have a workplace and need one. (I: Mhm.) Really. I don’t know. (I: Mhm.) I mean, a café, I think, is not an option. (2) And therefore, sure. I mean, I don’t know, (1) somehow that’s so, I don’t know, if that’s only in SALMSTADT, but it’s just so obvious that you then go to a coworking space.” (interview Sina, para. 123)

Sina mentions the café as another possible workspace, although she immediately excludes this option for herself personally. The CWS, on the other hand, is the clear alternative. This obviousness of considering a CWS as a possible work location is especially characteristic for the Salmstadt sample. In Tarfstadt, on the other hand, the coworking concept was less present in the public at the time of the study at the end of 2014 and the CWS density was significantly lower compared to that in Salmstadt. Thus, for the majority of the interviewees (n = 7), Tabit is also the first CWS in which they work. In Sargas, on the other hand, there are only two people who visit a CWS, Sargas to be precise, for the first time. Three Sargas coworkers have previously worked in another CWS also located in Salmstadt before they switched to Sargas: While Samir and Sina actively decided to switch to Sargas, Serge changed the CWS due to a job offer (although he no longer works with the other coworker).

248

9  Subject Perspective I: The Entry into the Coworking Space

9.2 The Search for the Right Coworking Space The following explanations consider the paths of the coworkers to Sargas or Tabit. Here, only those users are considered who actively searched for a CWS as an (alternative) work location and did not come to the CWS through an employment relationship. In the first section, it is illuminated how the coworkers became aware of the concrete CWS at all. In the second section, it is worked out how it came about that the users decided for that specific CWS (and not another one).

9.2.1 How the Coworkers Became Aware of the CWS The following shows the different ways in which the users came to the concrete CWS. A significant channel are personal contacts: Five of the interviewed Sargas coworkers and two Tabit users learned about the existence of this CWS through personal contacts, such as friends or acquaintances, who know or work (as a coworker or member of the operating team) in the respective CWS.5 For example, Sargas user Samantha describes that a friend recommended Sargas to her: “It was recommended to me by a c/ a (1) a coworker or friend (1) back in Mauritius (I: Mhm.) Who (1) ehm (1) was travelling to, to Salmstadt”and having a chat with her and her friends there. (1) And breakfast. And, and they recommended this place and so I checked it out” (interview Samantha, para. 13). Similarly, interviewed users also recommend their CWS to their acquaintances (cf. interview Thorsten, para. 100). Events are another important channel through which future coworkers get to know the CWS in advance and through which three of the surveyed users came into contact with their future CWS for the first time. Thus, coworker Sebastian tells of his first visit to Sargas during an art festival: “I came by (1) I passed by for one day, just I was wa/ WE were walking here and I came by, it was really nice. And yeah, then a couple of months after I was needing some space to work and I remembered this” (interview Sebastian_1, para. 20). Furthermore, the active search for CWSs preferably on the internet or via media contributions are other ways through which coworkers learn about their respective

5 Word-of-mouth is also the most frequently mentioned way in the Global Coworking Survey, through which about a third (33%) of the surveyed users come to their CWS (Foertsch 2017c). In the conversation with CWS operators, personal recommendation is also repeatedly mentioned as an important marketing instrument.

9.2  The Search for the Right Coworking Space

249

Table 9.2   How the coworkers became aware of the CWS

How the coworkers became aware of the CWS

Tabit

Personal contacts

Tarek, Thorsten

Samantha, Stefan, Simon, Sandro, Sabine

Events

Thomas, Theo, Thorsten

Sebastian, Simon, Sandro

Contractual relationship of own company with operator company of CWS

Tamara

–

(Online-)Research

Toni

Samir, Scott/Sophie, Sina

Sargas

General awareness of CWS in Till scene Media articles

–

– Sheldon

CWS. In this regard, it becomes apparent that the atmosphere of CWSs conveyed by images and text can also influence the decision to work in a certain CWS. Table 9.2 gives a concluding summary of the contact points through which the coworkers became aware of their CWS.

9.2.2 The Decision for the CWS and the Role of Atmospheres Attention is now being given to the question, how coworkers who faced a choice of alternative CWSs ultimately decided for Tabit or Sargas. This is of particular interest, as feelings and atmospheres play a significant role at this step, as the following explanations will show. Due to the different CWS situation in terms of number and familiarity of CWSs in Tarfstadt and Salmstadt, the choice for a specific CWS is mainly for the Sargas sample. The majority of the interviewed Tabit users did not look for further alternatives, as it was clear for them to work in Tabit or their work required them to work in this CWS. Tabit: Only two of the interviewed Tabit coworkers also looked at other CWSs in Tarfstadt as alternatives before they decided for Tabit as their workplace. User Till, who works remotely from Tarfstadt for a globally active start-up, did a test work day in another CWS, where he did not feel comfortable, which he in turn attributes to the different industry focus of the users there: “And THERE I did

250

9  Subject Perspective I: The Entry into the Coworking Space

not feel so comfortable, because, because that was, actually there are more so CREATIVE, DESIGN and PHOTOGRAPHERS there. And (1) they were all very nice people, but I just felt, that is a different groove” (interview Till, para. 11). Accordingly, he felt that the Tabit users in terms of their work (IT, computer work, concentrated, occasionally Skype calls) seem to have the “same GROOVE” as he does (ibid.). And also for start-up founder Toni, who worked as a solo selfemployed person when he entered Tabit, the feeling of atmospheres and the emotions associated with them determined his search process: “There are in Tarfstadt, I think, four or five coworking spaces, which I/ I did not look at all in detail. A few I looked at online, and THAT was enough, not to go there. Uh there are a few logical, logical reasons. For example the uh d/ d/ the D-Space here in Tarfstadt. (1) You can only go there if you do a social project. (I: Hm.) I find that (1) STRANGE. But okay. But that also LEADS to the fact that the people who are there/ are only from this field, (1) which hm does not necessarily have to be. Now (1) i/ in/ So (1) how should I say, uh (1) I have the feeling, they are somehow (1) different. (1) (I: Hm.) That should not sound somehow NEGATIVE or somehow so uh/ (1) Have a different way of thinking than, than I experience it here. Uh I looked at ONE coworking space before TABIT. That was uh, I came in, that was in such a/ in an old factory building. (I: Mhm.) What was interesting there, was uh the whole setting. So interesting not in a positive way. You come IN and it was then set up, it was such a, like a large/ a large room, (I: Mhm.) like the, the whole floor HERE. And it had windows here and here. (I: Mhm.) And in front of the windows were such offices built with glass doors. (I: Mhm.) And here in the back was kind of the, (1) the shared space. (1) That means, if you become a member there, (1) you are in here. (1) Can not even sit at the WINDOW. (1) And that looked SUPER dark, and I did not find that inviting at all. I mean HERE you sit at the window. You have uh/ On AT least two sides there are windows, it is always bright, uh nice, well lit, it looks INviting. That looked like such a, such a dark cave. (I: Mhm.) And THERE you do not want to go. There you just definitely do not want to go. I BELIEVE, (1) especially in THIS context, it also has to be somehow nice. (I: Mhm.) So it has to, it has to look inviting.” (interview Toni, para. 26)

Toni’s story refers to an intuitive, emotional and aesthetic-based process, in which the first impression was more important than a rational, strategic approach. Although Toni announces “logical reasons” for working in Tabit, behind them are rather emotional states. He mentions D-Space6, whose members he perceives as a homogeneous foreign group, who in his feeling are “somehow (1) different”— very similar to how Till also portrays the users of the other CWS. What seems to

6 All

CWS names, like personal names, were anonymized.

9.2  The Search for the Right Coworking Space

251

bother him is not the content orientation of D-Space per se, but rather the exclusivity and associated exclusion, which he finds alienating. Also at the unnamed CWS, which he looks at on site, he does not like the “setting”. Toni describes here an atmosphere that is used as a negative contrast to that in Tabit. The experienced atmosphere plays a decisive role for him in the decision for the CWS: It has to be “also somehow nice” and “inviting”. “Nice” is here an undifferentiated and at the same time very individual aesthetic criterion, which for him goes along with attributes like “bright”, “well lit” and “inviting” (not nice, on the other hand, is the “dark cave”, “SUPER dark” or “not inviting at all”). As he continues, Toni goes into another important aspect: the socially curated communal atmosphere, with regard to which the visited CWS differs from Tabit. In this respect, he names the Tabit Creative Space as an interactive space with its own designation as “Social Space”, where he experiences the people or specifically the coworking hosts as “pretty open” or “super open” (interview Toni, para. 26). Toni emphasizes that the members of the Tabit operating team, as responsible for the CWS, welcome new people in contrast to the visited CWS, where no one was present except a coworker (“That somehow did NOT work so well”, ibid.). “Inviting” therefore refers not only to the effect of the non-human space, but also means for Toni to be welcomed by the operating team. Sargas: In contrast to the coworkers interviewed from Tabit, the majority of the surveyed Sargas users (n = 11) looked at other CWS alternatives online or on site besides Sargas. Two coworkers (Samir and Sina) deliberately decided to switch from their old Salmstädter CWS to Sargas. Like D-Space in Tarfstadt, which is often used as a point of comparison in the Tabit interviews (as well as in the interview with Toni), there is also a frequently compared Salmstädter CWS in the Sargas interviews: Z-Space. And here too, perceived atmospheres and associated feelings as well as the fit to the CWS and its members play an important role in the decision for Sargas. Sina, who switched from Z-Space to Sargas, explains: “Well, I always like variety. Therefore, at some point I had enough of it there. And that [Z-Space] was also somehow much more anonymous. So there I sometimes wished to be able to establish more contact, but I couldn’t. (I: Mhm.) And uh so t/ that was just complicated, because the mood was not like that. And here/ And then I looked around for a new COWORKING space. And here in, in Sargas I had the feeling that it was somehow a FRIENDLIER and more open atmosphere. (2) Yes. And then I thought, well, that’s around the corner. I don’t have to go that far to work. Then I save 40 minutes of cycling every day. (I: Mhm.) And, yes, I thought that was the perfect solution. And uh I’m still very h/ very happy here.” (interview Sina, para. 13)

252

9  Subject Perspective I: The Entry into the Coworking Space

So Sina’s urge for change led her from Z-Space to Sargas. In contrast to the anonymity of Z-Space, she emphasizes the “FRIENDLIER and more open atmosphere” of Sargas: While she wished for more social contact in Z-Space, she has the opportunity to do so in Sargas, even if she does not take advantage of it (see Sect. 9.1). In addition to the appealing communicative atmosphere, Sina also cites the shorter distance to her place of residence as an argument for choosing Sargas, which is also a decision criterion for other users. Coworker Sandro also faced the choice between Z-Space and Sargas. For him, too, the atmosphere and the distance to his place of residence were decisive, which is why he opted for Sargas (see for this and the following statements of the paragraph interview Sandro, paras. 11 f.). Unlike Sina, however, Sandro attaches importance to an appropriate “Buffer[]distance” between work and home, in order to spatially separate work and life. He describes the atmosphere of Sargas as more interesting than that of Z-Space. In his explanation, he focuses on the different CWS size and the associated anonymity and fluctuation of the larger Z-Space (“I felt, like people coming and going.” (ibid., para. 11)). He experiences Sargas, on the other hand, as a good balance between being for oneself and having the possibility to get in touch with other people: “For me like Sargas was (1) eh a good balance between having your SPACE (1) and being surrounded by (2) people, who can ehm also INSPIRE you or are doing creative work. Ehm, (1) so that’s something I really enjoyed about this PLACE” (ibid., para. 12). As he also elaborates in the further interview, he appreciates Sargas for the fact that the users come from the creative industry, while he characterizes the users of Z-Space as “very business-minded, very […] TECHNICAL” (interview Sandro, para. 16). And this, even though he counts himself among the latter: “I preFER I guess being (1) the more SERIOUS person in a creative field than the more creative person in a serious field” (ibid.). The atmosphere, and concretely the other coworkers, as well as the proximity to the place of residence (or in Sandro’s case the distance) are also points that are mentioned by other Sargas users. In other interviews, the appealing non-human space is also cited to justify the emotional preference for Sargas: “So we visited like three or four coworking spaces. (I: Mhm.) And the one that we liked most was (1) Sargas. (I: Mhm.) Because we felt that people were like, I don’t know, friendly and (1) also the SPACE. We, we REALLY liked this building and the set-up and the coffee that we have downstairs. (I: Mhm.) And (Scott: Yeah.) we felt that were like good vibrations.” (Sophie, interview Scott_Sophie, para. 65)

As this quote again makes clear, the feeling or sensing of the atmosphere and those elements that create the atmosphere, i.e. the non-human space and the other

9.2  The Search for the Right Coworking Space

253

coworkers, play a significant role in the decision for (or also against) a CWS. The users also mention specific container spaces and their advantages to justify the decision for Sargas: “The rooms are nice. This, this availability of such a SILENT floor, I found very important, so that you can really work quietly. And then of course also these other facilities, like the, the CAFÉ (1) with, uh with FOOD at lunchtime. (1) Uh and the/ the GARDEN, (I: Mhm.) right. There is I think no coworking (1) in Salmstadt with a garden, where you can sit outside in the summer and also work from outside, if you want.” (interview Stefan, para. 9)

As Stefan typically emphasizes, those people who mainly work in the Silent Floor, the importance of this space for concentrated mental work in relation to the work setting in their decision to work in Sargas (see in more detail Sect. 10.1.1). Stefan also emphasizes in the above quote the spatial peculiarities of Sargas and their added value: The Garden as an outdoor space, which can also be used for work in the summer and the Café, which offers lunch. Both spaces, which are experienced by the users as (judgmental-)aesthetically appealing, are repeatedly mentioned in the interviews as spatial advantages of Sargas. Likewise, the lunch offer in relation to the quality of the food, the experimental cuisine and the good price-performance ratio is repeatedly mentioned in the user interviews. Coworker Samantha also mentions a criterion that prompted her to work in Sargas: The fit of the CWS values and, associated with that, the orientation of the CWS and its topics to one’s own values and interests: “That’s a large part of WHY ehm (1) I came to Sargas, because I li/ I like the (1) the philosophy a lot. (I: Hm.) (clicking tongue) FOOD and sustainability and, (1) and, ehm (1) combining that both (1) with coworking. Ehm and I find that a lot of, a lot of people are working on really (1) interesting things here. So I, yeah, (2) YEAH, it’s ehm, yeah it’s very much in my (2) ehm philosophy of, of (2) yeah, balan/ balancing work with, with (1) life and other things that are important.” (interview Samantha, para. 126)

This is also related to the fit of the (like-minded) other coworkers, who have similar interests and work on topics that interest oneself. However, not all coworkers find it easy to put their decision for Sargas into words and justify it, which is due to the fact that, as has already become clear in some places, this was typically made intuitively. Here, the first impression is decisive and, associated with that, the perceived atmosphere. It is also characteristic that, for example, coworker Samir cannot justify his decision for Sargas with

254

9  Subject Perspective I: The Entry into the Coworking Space

rational arguments such as the price. He instead cites the friendly atmosphere of Sargas: “Well, I just DECIDED that this looks to me like the friendliest place. (smiles) (I: Mhm.) You know, eh that’s IT. (I: Mhm.) I think the prices were about the same” (interview Samir, para. 30). A comparison between Sargas and Tabit users reveals that the importance of the positioning of CWSs and place of residence is different: In the case of Sargas, as already mentioned, the proximity of the CWS to the place of residence is a criterion that influenced the decision in favor of Sargas, or that also limited the search to a certain radius in advance. The Tabit users, on the other hand, accept longer distances to their place of residence in order to work in Tabit.7 They rather appreciate the central and good location of Tabit and the infrastructure in the neighborhood with cafés, restaurants and shopping facilities. Conversely, in the case of Sargas, not only the proximity of the CWS to the place of residence plays a role, but also the place of residence is sought near the workplace CWS. Thus, the city of Salmstadt or the district where Sargas is located, and specifically also Sargas, have a great attraction across city and country borders.8 Accordingly, among the Sargas users, newcomers are typical, who relocate from other parts of Germany or other countries to Salmstadt temporarily or for an indefinite period of time.9

7 Thus,

in the Sargas sample, there is only one user who accepts a distance of more than 30 minutes, in Tabit there are five of the interviewed users (see Sect. 6.2). This reflects the lower CWS density in Tarfstadt and also that in the Tabit sample there are more employees of start-ups based in the CWS. 8 CWSs typically prefer locations near the city center, the creative and digital economy, and “scene quarters” (S. Schmidt et al. 2016, p. 33). Regarding the relationship between Open Creative Labs in general and gentrification, Suntje Schmidt, Oliver Ibert, Andreas Kuebart and Juliane Kühn (2016, p. 11) state: “It is not yet possible to determine a direction of causality, labs can thus be the cause or symptom of gentrification.” For the cases of Tabit and Sargas, it can be noted that both CWSs were closed because the property was to be upgraded. In the case of Sargas, there was a drastic increase in rent, in the case of Tabit, a renovation of the property. 9 For example, user Samir, who, however, after 3.5 years of membership in Sargas, is skeptical about the gentrification of the district where Sargas is located, associated with rising rents (see interview Samir, paras. 63 f.). In this regard, he plans to move to another Salmstadt district with less expensive rents at the time of the interview and has canceled his Sargas membership.

9.3  Intermediate Conclusion: Entering the Coworking Space

255

9.3 Intermediate Conclusion: Entering the Coworking Space The results of the present study support the previous findings on motives and benefits for working in CWSs (cf. Sect. 2.3). It became clear that the decision to work in a CWS is usually self-determined, when actively searched for. It was shown that the users visit CWSs to receive support for challenges that go along with the blurring and subjectification of work. In this respect, the CWSs become places of identification for the subjectified workers (Müller 2018, p. 236 f.). Of particular interest for this work is the following finding: When it comes to choosing a specific CWS among a corresponding offer of alternatives, the present analysis shows, the decision is less rational, but rather intuitive and based on perceived atmospheres and associated feelings. The fact that the coworking hosts create atmospheres during the first visit to elicit bodily experiences and feelings among the participants of the tour (de Vaujany et al. 2019) addresses exactly this point and shows that the operators have a corresponding practical knowledge about the importance of atmospheres. Thus, Müller (2018, p. 237) also states for her study with reference to two operator interviews that the operators of CWSs “try to convey a special atmosphere, which in turn is an essential criterion for many coworkers.” The fit between coworkers and CWS is based on a self-selection, provided that the choice of the CWS is voluntary. Insofar as the perception of CWS spaces and atmospheres is pre-structured by the habitus, this means with Bourdieu: “[I]t is the habitus that makes the habitat, in the sense that it forms certain preferences for a more or less adequate use of the habitat” (Bourdieu 1991, p. 32). In relation to CWSs, this means that people also choose suitable work spaces and places for them against the background of their habitus and thus developed taste preferences. Thus, they seek the open atmosphere of like-minded people (cf. Brown 2017) and an atmosphere that appeals to and invites their own (or scene-specific (cf. Bender 2013)) aesthetic codes. These preferences are set in contrast to other CWSs and their members and atmospheres, where there is no such fit. Conversely, Schroer (2016, p. 89) emphasizes with reference to Bourdieu, it could also be formulated the other way around: “It is the habitat that makes the habitus”, i.e. in the habitus, social and thus also spatial structures are also manifested (ibid., p. 88 f.). Accordingly, the coworkers have already had experiences with (work) spaces and places, possibly also other CWSs, which have become inherent in the habitus and guide the space preferences.

256

9  Subject Perspective I: The Entry into the Coworking Space

After tracing the paths of the users into Tabit resp. Sargas in this chapter, the following chapter will deal with the daily work of the users in the CWS, how they develop the CWS and constitute their own spaces and atmospheres of work.

Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

10

As shown in Chap. 8 with regard to the spatial arrangements and atmospheres in their construction, the two work settings interaction and concentrated mental work enable different (work-)activities. In the case of the spaces for concentrated mental work, the simple and functional furnishing with office furniture, subdued colors, workstations with enough space and possibly visual protection, as well as the rules of silence and the associated consideration for each other, promote the concentrated side-by-side-for-oneself work on the laptop. Here it is legitimized to focus on one’s own activity, without having to adhere to further social conventions such as greeting or small talk. Characteristic are coworkers who perform practices of doing being busy with their laptops and other artifacts and thus contribute to a quiet and concentrated work atmosphere. In the case of the spaces for interaction, the non-human space is characterized by elements from non-office areas such as café or apartment, as well as by warm colors and the use of natural materials, which contribute to a cozy, stimulating atmosphere. Table arrangements and social meeting points are oriented towards social interactions. Through doing being open, it is easy to make contact with others. This goes along with a lively, sociable atmosphere and being lenient at the same time. Although the spatial arrangements are not always immediately decipherable as spaces of work and here also activities of non-work take place, there is a shared knowledge that these are spaces of a CWS, where (primarily) work is done. Here, not only is work done together, but being active for oneself is also legitimized. For this, the users show themselves as working through practices of doing being busy. This is associated with sharing tables, without necessarily interacting with each other. It is also accepted to sit down at a table that is already occupied, without having to negotiate this beforehand.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 A. Bernhardt, Coworking Atmospheres, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41193-0_10

257

258

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

After the previous chapters focused the analytical view on the material shape of CWSs, the underlying spatial structures and the associated rules and practices, and addressed the composition of atmospheres, the following will focus on the perspective of the coworkers as space-constructing subjects, who appropriate the CWS spaces as work spaces (cf. gray marking in Fig. 10.1). With reference to Löw’s relational concept of space, the development of CWS spaces (as the experiencing and appropriating of space, cf. Sect. 3.3.2) refers to the developing of spaces within the framework of the operation of synthesis as well as to the creation of one’s own spaces as a placement practice within the framework of spacing (cf. Deinet 2010, p. 38). Following this, the coworkers create different (work)spaces and (work)atmospheres at one place in their everyday life. In this chapter, it will be examined in more detail how the coworkers develop the open spaces in the CWS through the synthesis and its effect and how they actively create their own work spaces and atmospheres. As an expression of the subjectification of work, the everyday work of coworkers, and thus also the spatial organizational performance in relation to the link-

Fig. 10.1   Conceptual framing—locating chapter 10 (gray marking). (Own illustration)

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

259

age of activities and places, is characterized by self-organization (cf. Sect. 1.1.4, Petendra 2015, p. 210 ff.). The coworkers have comparatively high degrees of freedom in relation to the decision, at which places and in which container spaces they pursue which activities. The CWS as an institutionalized work space provides corresponding spatial structures and thus simplifies the everyday constitution of one’s own work spaces. With regard to the type of membership1, fixed- and flexible-desk users can be distinguished, who occupy different territories (see Sect. 3.3.2.3). The fixed-desk workplaces typically consist of a desk and an office chair, whereby it is left to the occupiers of the place to also bring their own furniture. In the cases examined, the fixed desks are positioned in the spaces for concentrated mental work or in their own team office, or in the case of the Sargas Vibrant Floor, separated by a curtain in the rear area. Fixed-desk users2 (who are also called “Residents” (Tabit 2015) in the Tabit) occupy the fixed workplaces for a prolonged duration. They (and also others) perceive the fixed desk as their workplace (and thus as their “property”). Fixed desks are thus occupied as primary territories, whereby the degree of personalization is comparatively high. Due to the prolonged occupation of the fixed workplace, the fixed-desk users do not have to orient themselves anew in the CWS and set up their place every time they visit.3 In contrast, the flexible-desk users (in Tabit also called “Urban Nomads” (Tabit 2015) or “Nomads” (interview Tabea, para. 7)) are encouraged by the desk sharing and the cleandesk policy to occupy a new place and set it up as their temporary workplace every time they visit. The flexible workplaces typically consist of a table chair combination (besides desk and office chair also wooden table and chair or table and beer bench) or are simply a place on the sofa or the armchair. They are located both in the interactive spaces and in the spaces for concentrated mental work (here marked as such by stickers (Tabit) or picture frames (Sargas)). The flex desks are personalized by the users for the duration of the occupation by positioning the things they bring along and are occupied as secondary territories. The flexibledesk users represent the majority of the interviewees. As a special form of flex-

1 For

the concrete memberships of the cases examined, see Sect. 6.2. the sample, the Tabit users Troy, Tamara and Tristan as well as Sargas user Samir are fixed-desk users, whereby Tamara occupies her own team office with her start-up. 3 If necessary, the fixed-desk users can also use the flexible-desk places and position themselves, for example, in another open space. 2 In

260

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

ible-desk users, the café users4 are to be mentioned for the case of Sargas, who come to Sargas to work. These use exclusively the public areas, which are accessible without CWS membership: the Garden and the Café. Both spaces are public and have no access restriction. Here, the places are occupied as tertiary territories. In the Café, the duration of the occupation is linked to the consumption of the café offer (although not as rigidly as in a normal café) and the territories are given up faster than those of the flexible-desk users. In relation to the development of the spaces, the duration of membership also plays a role, in addition to the type of membership. While new coworkers have to develop a CWS completely new at first, established users have developed preferences and routines over time in relation to the constitution of their own work space. The general background of experience with coworking is also relevant when it comes to developing new, unknown CWSs for the first time: This is easy for experienced coworkers—against the background that CWSs are institutionalized work spaces and the elementary information, such as WIFI password and flex desks, are accordingly marked. For example, on my first visit to Sargas, the community manager is not present and I do not receive a tour through the CWS or any other instruction on how to use the CWS. Nevertheless, it is quite easy for me to explore the CWS and its open spaces without guidance (see field notes Sargas, BP00.1). For the following explanations, the development of the spaces by the flex-desk coworkers moves more into the focus of the analysis, as they position themselves anew in the CWS every day and set up their workplace, developing corresponding preferences and strategies over time with increasing membership duration. The fixed-desk users have to make fewer decisions when settling down and setting up their workplace every day due to the fixed workplace. However, they are also included in the analysis and their actions are considered when they position themselves voluntarily (in relation to the fixed workplace or the development of additional spaces besides the fixed desk) or when it comes to comparing their actions with those of the flex-desk users. For this chapter, the user interviews and especially the workplace photos and related narratives, as well as own field experiences and observations are used as data basis. I will approach the development of work spaces by the users in several steps. First, the arrival and settling in are in the focus of analysis: action-guiding dimen-

4 In the sample, this group is represented by Sheldon. In addition, at the time of the interview, user Samantha also temporarily has no CWS membership and stays exclusively in the Café and the Garden.

10.1  Arriving and Settling in: The Own Placement …

261

sions are worked out, according to which the coworkers place themselves in the CWS (Sect. 10.1). It is also illuminated how flex-desk coworkers position themselves for their daily work in the open space and what is important for them in doing so. In addition, the retreat spaces of the coworkers are examined more closely. Section 10.2 directs the view to the personal work spaces of the coworkers and thus to the concrete work places and the artifacts involved in them. First, it is elicited how the users reconstruct their workplaces, in order to then go into two technical artifacts that play an important role in the constitution of the personal work space: the laptop and the headphones. In Sect. 10.3, the attitudes of the flex-desk users are discussed in more detail and counteracting strategies, with which preferred workplaces are occupied, are uncovered. In conclusion, three typical attitudes in relation to the use of the CWSs are summarized, which differ in terms of the general work (space) understanding and the space preferences, which goes along with a different use of the CWS premises (Sect. 10.4). The user types constructed with this are used to present the aspects of this chapter mentioned above in a pointed way.

10.1 Arriving and Settling in: The Own Placement in the Coworking Space In both examined CWSs, the open spaces offer different spatial arrangements that are associated with different work settings and atmospheres. The versatility of the space offer and the associated flexibility to use it are also positively evaluated by the majority of the interviewed coworkers in both case studies (cf. Bernhardt 2017, p. 62). For example, coworker Sina comments on the spatial layout in the Sargas house: “I think it’s great. Because every room or every floor has a different character and you can choose accordingly” (interview Sina, para. 91).5 Tabit user Toni also emphasizes the diversity of the space offer and the associated work settings positively: “No matter what WORK style you have, you, you can find it here. Right, you can/ Do you want to sit on the sofa? Fine. Up here. You can go down. Uh, uh you can uh very quietly uh o/ uh here in the CORNER sit at the, at the, at the, at the TABLE and

5 This

is an advantage over smaller CWSs that only have one area, as user Simon experienced in another CWS: “[T]hen you heard the people making themselves a cup of coffee and talking about the party (1) the day before yesterday, while you tried to FINALLY finish this damn project” (interview Simon, para. 73).

262

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

uh work like at/ like it would be at a big bank somewhere. (1) And probably it’s even uh quieter here than there. But uh/ The whole SPECTRUM and somehow (1) we [note AB: from the perspective of his start-up] think it’s cool here.” (interview Toni, para. 20)

Sargas user Samantha appreciates the possibility to switch between the different open spaces as conducive to her own work productivity. Depending on the work activity and the associated work tools or her own mood or weather, she uses the Sargas Silent Floor, the Café or the Garden: “I have the option to change, change places. (I: Mhm.) So if I need to really concentrate on ehm (1) and do some like silent like qua/ coding. (I: Mhm.) With a large screen. Ehm (2) ehm I can go up to the Silent Floor. (1) And, and if I (2) feel, feel like more of a, (1) like a, a buzz conversational (1) vibe I can go down to the café. And if I want sunshine I can go OUTSIDE. (I: Mhm.) So I think, I think the combination of all those three (1) means that I can work really well (I: Mhm.) here. Ehm (1) compared to another place where I would be, ehm (2) yeah, probably in the same spot. (I: Mhm.) Hm. (1) All the time.” (interview Samantha, para. 100)

While Samantha decides situationally where she places herself in the CWS, the majority of the interviewed coworkers prefer a certain open space for performing their everyday work—as do the previously mentioned coworkers Sina and Toni.6 This will be discussed in more detail at the end of this chapter (see Sect. 10.4). In the following, it will first be examined which criteria generally play a role in where the users place themselves.

10.1.1 Action-Guiding Dimensions for One’s Own Placement The above statement by Samantha makes it clear that—although the work settings are primarily oriented towards processing different activities—the motives of the users to stay in certain container spaces are not exclusively guided by

6 This

can be observed in both CWSs. Interestingly, Sina and Toni highlight the versatility of the space offer positively, although the use is limited to the possibility to choose between the open spaces. In everyday CWS life, both mainly place themselves in the respective spaces for concentrated mental work. Conversely, there are coworkers who are mainly in the spaces for interaction, although they also emphasize that they appreciate the different spaces in the CWS.

10.1  Arriving and Settling in: The Own Placement …

263

which activity they pursue, but rather present themselves in a more diverse way. Figure 10.2 gives an overview of different dimensions that can guide one’s own placement in the CWS. Besides the work setting, which enables or promotes certain activities, the co-present others, the non-human inanimate space and the attuned space of bodily presence as atmosphere or one’s own mood can also play a significant role in one’s own placement. At this point, it should be emphasized that these dimensions highlight different focal points, but are by no means sharply separated. Thus, the sociomaterial space (inanimate space and co-present others) is constitutive for the atmosphere (as the external effect of the arranged people and things realized in perception (cf. Sect. 3.2)). Likewise, the sociomaterial space as milieu, i.e. the material and social context associated with the behavioral patterns, is constitutive for the work setting (cf. Sect. 3.4.2). Work setting and atmosphere are again two analytical concepts that are closely linked: The perceived atmosphere influences one’s own action and vice versa, the spatial action has an influence on the atmosphere and its perception.

Fig. 10.2   Action-guiding dimensions for one’s own placement. (Own illustration)

264

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

10.1.1.1 Type of Activity and Work Setting According to the behavioral patterns that are allowed or encouraged by the work settings, the interviewees of both case studies repeatedly refer to the type of activity they are engaged in when they talk about the open spaces they visit for work.7 This becomes particularly evident in the case of Sargas with the different rules of noise and interaction in the open spaces. For example, video maker Simon describes how he situates himself in the Sargas building depending on his different activities: “[I am] on the second floor, when I have to (1) uh [edit] videos, so when I have to (1) work CONCENTRATED, then I go to the SILENT floor. (I: Mhm.) And when I just check emails or expect phone calls, then I sit on the first floor [note AB: Vibrant Floor]. (I: Mhm.) Or when I meet someone (1) or I’m hungry, then I’m in the café.” (interview Simon, para. 55)

This description corresponds to the activities envisaged within the framework of the work settings. For Simon, the level of concentration required for the activity or the possibility of interaction with physically absent or present people plays a role in the choice of the open space. For concentrated mental work without interaction with physically present or absent people, Simon places himself in the Silent Floor as a space for concentrated mental work. People who pursue work that requires quietness and concentration mainly situate themselves here, such as user Stefan, who works exclusively in the Silent Floor and for whom “this quiet work is very important” (interview Stefan, para. 26), which he confirms with a photo of the door sign “Coworking Silence”. He names the activities of concentrated, or as he calls it “real” work, that he engages in, as follows: “While I (1) actually work properly, that means actually only reading documents, analyzing, WRITING, writing texts, so a lot with (1) uh, a lot with texts simply. And (1) there I have to work concentrated” (interview Stefan, para. 7). For Sargas fixed-desk user Samir, the positioning of the fixed workplace in the Silent Floor is decisive for him to work in Sargas because of the silence: “[I]f there was no silent floor I doubted I would be here. (I: Mhm.) Ehm (1) yeah, so I doubted I would be here, if there was no silent floor” (interview Samir, para. 143). His statement shows how important the availability of specific work settings in relation to the rules of noise and interaction is for (larger) CWSs to appeal to different user groups. 7 This

is where the idea of “activity based working” comes into play, according to which certain activities entail certain requirements for the non-human space (cf. Sect. 2.1.3).

10.1  Arriving and Settling in: The Own Placement …

265

As can be seen from the above quote, Simon stays in the Vibrant Floor when he communicates with physically absent people in writing or verbally. The fact that he places himself there when he “just checks emails or expects phone calls”, indicates that these are activities that require less concentration for him. How much concentration different tasks require and which work setting is preferred in this respect is perceived individually differently, as the example of programming shows. Thus, Sargas user Scott explains his preferred placement in the Silent Floor, besides the appealing aesthetics (see below Sect. 10.1.1.3), also by the fact that the activity of programming, on which he is focused on his computer, requires silence, combined with little distraction. If he communicates on the side, then in the virtual space in writing with physically absent people via chat and thus in the same medium. A verbal conversation, on the other hand, is associated with a loss of concentration, as Scott explains: “[I]f I HAVE to like change eh my like kind of mental state to like being on the computer to like talking to SOMEONE then eh if I’m programming it loses my con/ eh concentration a lot. It’s DIFFERENT when I’m doing other things. But when I’m programming like this week for example, hm I’m working much better from (1) eh the second floor [note AB: Silent Floor].” (interview Scott, para. 24)

On the other hand, Tabit coworker Tarek, who works in the Creative Space at the time of the interview (but has also worked in the Classic Office before), finds that interruptions and distractions can also be beneficial when programming: “For every line that you program, you also THINK for a few minutes, so it’s actually not/ so you’re not somehow permanently doing something, you also sometimes have to think or something. (I: Mhm.) And maybe it’s good to go out for a short time or eh (1) get some coffee or get a drink or something or chat with someone.” (interview Tarek, para. 153)

The two attitudes of Scott and Tarek show that tasks and the associated requirements for the personal work space and the personal work atmosphere are interpreted subjectively differently by the users despite objective similarity, resulting in their own placement in different work settings, both of which enable working for oneself on the laptop, whether the work setting is concentrated mental work or interaction. Let us look again at Sargas coworker Simon and his placements: In the above quote, he indicates that he uses the lively café for meetings in physical co-presence or to satisfy his needs when he is hungry. Like him, other coworkers also seek the spaces for interaction according to their work setting, in order to interact

266

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

with physically present or absent people or to have the possibility to do so. This happens in the context of meetings, phone calls or video conferences (as long as it is not too loud, as often in the Sargas Café) or for teamwork. Besides the possibility of interaction in the context of the work setting, in the case of Tabit, the atmosphere of the Creative Space (compared to the meeting rooms or meeting points outside the CWS) is also decisive when it comes to holding internal or external meetings here: “EVEN when I’m upstairs [note AB: in the Classic Office] and we do some standup[-meeting], we usually go DOWN [note AB: to the Creative Space], just because it/ (1) Downstairs is just more the le/ the LIVELY feeling. (I: Mhm.) And for a little CHAT also somehow (1) the BETTER environment.” (interview Tarek, para. 124) “I think, down there [note AB: Creative Space] is just, what I find cool, it is RELAXED, you can (2) especially, if you have some visitors from EXTERNAL, if you have a meeting, then you can really do it well down there.” (interview Tamara, para. 77)

The lively and relaxed atmosphere of interpersonal communication of the Creative Space invites exchange and is considered attractive for meetings with external people. Especially for break activities, such as playing at the Tabit football table or having (shared) lunch or coffee breaks (see Sect. 8.2.2), the Sargas Café and the Garden as well as the Tabit Creative Space are important for the majority of the coworkers, even if these spaces for interaction are not used for work. Thus, the barista coffee machine and the football table of the Tabit Creative Space are important non-human actors in the break ritual after lunch of Troy and his work team, who have fixed workstations in the Classic Office (see interview Troy, paras. 97 ff.). Regarding a photo of his four colleagues playing at the football table, Troy explains: “SOMETIMES you need a REAL break and then the people go and play [note AB: table] football. (I: (Laughs.)) Yes, and then, THEN it becomes s/ THAT is then eh (1) EVEN more focused than working, as you can see. […] [I] think, that is also IMPORTANT for the BRAIN, such BREAKS, where you do something DIFFERENT.” (ibid.)

Likewise, the Sargas Café is a break place for Silent Floor user Stefan, where he holds joint coffee breaks with other coworkers (see Sect. 11.2). “(Figure 10.3) Yes, that is again the view of the CAFÉ. (1) Also important, eh (1) I also do sometimes, just go down, and when you take a break, and then you are more

10.1  Arriving and Settling in: The Own Placement …

267

Fig. 10.3   Section Sargas Café. (Photo: Stefan) among people and then you have/ you have this café atmosphere, music is playing and (1) you can sit down. So if/ practically the counterpart to the GARden, when it rains outside.” (interview Stefan, para. 27)

As Stefan’s remarks make clear, the atmosphere plays an important role not only when it comes to the places of work (see below Sect. 10.1.1.4), but also in relation to the places of break. In this respect, the spaces for interaction are places that most of the users find appealing and where they feel comfortable.8 Since the coworkers on the Silent Floor hardly interact with each other during work due to the work setting, the exchange at the social places of Sargas is of special importance for some of them. Thus, Serge feels restricted in terms of the possibility of interaction on the work-focused Silent Floor. For the exchange with other users, he therefore likes to place himself in the rooms for interaction: “I like to MOVE also, you know. ALSO because (1) uh UPSTAIRS [note AB: Silent Floor] ya ah, there are/ you cannot talk to people. So it’s just WORK, focused, but ti/ you don’t HAVE I mean BIG eh interactions with people there. And HERE [note AB: Vibrant Floor] for example I can talk, I can just ah say something to someone and/ (1) So, that’s also nice” (interview Serge, para. 51).

8 With

the exception of Tabit user Tristan, see below Sect. 10.4.2.

268

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

Coworkers who mainly use the spaces for concentrated mental work as their work places also indicate that they use the rooms for interaction for activities that are not part of their regular range of activities, such as Sargas coworker Sandro, who says he uses the Vibrant Floor when he is “in the mood for (1) more open and creative work” (interview Sandro, para. 7). Tabit coworker Toni can also imagine using the Creative Space in the sense of its name for more creative work (although he notes that this has hardly happened so far).9 “I think, (1) downstairs [note AB: Creative Space] I go, IF, then when I have to do some things/ (2) There are some things, if I have to do them, then I would sit down there. And that is uh, when I write something, somehow a bit creative, more creative, then it can happen that I say: “Hey, I sit down there.” (I: Mhm.) Uh what THEN happens, is, then I like to sit on a SOFA or on an ARMCHAIR. (2) That’s how it is. But as soon as I do something, where you have to concentrate a bit, (1) so conCENtrate just develop something or so, then I actually prefer to be upstairs [note AB: Classic Office].” (interview Toni, para. 56)

According to Toni, moving to a different seat, such as a sofa or an armchair is necessary to create a creative work atmosphere. Accordingly, coworker Troy prefers the leather armchair in the Creative Space for doing activities without a laptop, such as reading or brainstorming (cf. interview Troy, para. 96), which he also photographed as part of the photo task (cf. Fig. 10.4): “When I go down [note AB: to the creative space], then uh, (2) yes you switch almost a LITTLE. It’s a / a different environment. And I also sometimes go [down] there, when I either (2) uh want to do something else, for example reading […] [I] don’t sit at the computer. And when I have a screen there and want to read a paper, then (1) it doesn’t match in my brain. And then I just go [down] there and sit (1) in that ch=chair there, I took a (1) photo [of] it.” (interview Troy, para. 11)

Contrary to the photographed user, who has placed his laptop on his legs raised on a stool, Troy emphasizes in the interview that he consciously stays here for analog activities, to adapt the atmosphere of the space to his own mood in relation to analog work. Ton’s and Troy’s statements illustrate that the Tabit Creative Space is understood by the Tabit users as a stimulating space for creative and

9 Cf. footnote 6 in Chap. 10. The fact that interview partners describe hypothetical usage possibilities of the open spaces in the conversation, which in reality do not take place like that, can also partly have to do with the interview situation: Possibly, the interviewee feels an expectation that all the spaces of the CWS should be used.

10.1  Arriving and Settling in: The Own Placement …

269

Fig. 10.4   Section Tabit Creative Space. (Photo: Troy)

“DIFFERENT or more RELAXED uh work” (interview Troy, para. 123) than in a conventional office. Analogously, the Classic Office is attributed no creative, but “classically focused” (ibid.) work, following the spatial arrangement. As the references to the importance of the atmosphere make clear, the type of activity is also linked to the other action-guiding dimensions presented here, such as instrumentality, to perform a work task. In the case of Troy, the absence of the (external) screen that is present in his normal work setting plays an important role for him to engage in analog reading. Conversely, when choosing the spaces for concentrated mental work, the availability of external screens as an instrumental criterion is important for those coworkers who do work that requires a corresponding display area. Finally, rules are associated with the respective work setting, which influence the coworkers in their placement in the CWS: be it direct, such as behavioral rules regarding noise level and interaction level, or indirect, such as the rule for greeting. That the rules regarding the noise level can be more significant for one’s own placement than the experienced atmosphere is shown by the example of Sargas coworker Sophie. She finds the Silent Floor more cozy, but the ban on talking too restrictive, which is why she mainly works in the Vibrant Floor,

270

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

because you can talk there (cf. interview Scott_Sophie, paras. 11 ff. and following Sect. 10.4.3). Sargas user Simon, on the other hand, notes elsewhere that he prefers the Silent Floor over the other open spaces, “because there it’s NOT considered rude if you just KEEP working”, without following the social conventions of greeting acquaintances (interview Simon, para. 73) (cf. Sect. 8.2.1). In this regard, Simon emphasizes the importance of the existence of different open spaces with different behavioral rules (interview Simon, para. 73). Put bluntly, one’s own positioning in the Silent Floor can serve to escape social interactions with present others. To what extent the co-present others also influence one’s own placement is discussed below.

10.1.1.2 Co-present Others The presence of the other coworkers is also relevant for one’s own placement in the CWS. For the interviewees, the co-present others have different functions in this regard. They are significant as indeterminate others in relation to creating a work atmosphere, as concrete others they play a role when interacting with them in the workday, but also as familiar faces in relation to creating a familiar atmosphere. On the one hand, the present coworkers are of importance as indeterminate others, who co-determine the communicative character of the atmosphere of the spaces. The concrete persons are irrelevant and interchangeable in this case. For creating a working atmosphere, the indeterminate others play a role in three respects. First, it is generally—and independently of the chosen work setting— important for the users to not feel alone at work, as Tabit user Till explains: “So what I like about Tabit, erm, is that you don’t feel ALONE. (1) You have people around you. Even if I don’t talk to anyone ALL day, which can also happen, so in Tabit. Of course I actually have calls all day, I have calls all the time with my OTHER business partners, but with Tabit it can also be that I don’t talk to anyone ALL day. (1) Hm, maybe say hello and goodbye, BUT you still feel a bit like in an office with social interaction and people around and bumping into each other over a coffee and so on.” (interview Till, para. 3)

The co-present others and their actions constitute in this case the social atmosphere of an office, which coworker Till can experience and thus consume passively within the synthesis of the Creative Space, without necessarily interacting

10.1  Arriving and Settling in: The Own Placement …

271

with them.10 As an enhancement of this, the indeterminate co-present others secondly contribute to a lively atmosphere in the spaces for interaction, which is important for some users at work. To this end, Sargas user Sabine, who mainly stays in the Vibrant Floor, but has also worked in the Café, says: “I was also for a while (1) actually always in the café, so. (2) Because exact/ for the same REASON, because I actually, I AM here anyway, because otherwise I sit alone in my room at home and I get sick of these (laughing) four walls. So, and that’s why I ENJOY it, when something happens around me. And even if I don’t interact with the people or talk to them, (1) erm then they are, they are still there, and I see somehow what they do or/ (I: Mhm.) So (1) yes. And that’s why I was just downstairs [note AB: in the Café] for a long time.” (interview Sabine, para. 9)

Sabine values a lively, interactive atmosphere in relation to her work space and refers to a typical motive for entering the CWS, escaping the isolation of working from home (see Sect. 9.1). The relevant users appreciate getting something from the other coworkers and experiencing the communal atmosphere shaped by social interactions and the associated feeling of belonging together while working, as Tabit user Tarek also states for the users of the Creative Space: “I THINK, especially DOWNstairs in the Creative Space, you also take that into ACCOUNT, you WANT that maybe also, (I: Mhm.) (1) you don’t want to just work there somehow by yourself. So you want a BIT of the feeling of, of, (1) of, of COMMUNITY and of, of (1) of getting something from the OTHERS, what they are doing a bit.” (interview Tarek, para. 10)

By randomly overhearing conversations while working alongside each other, the coworkers get to know something about the other people present, which is perceived less as a distraction, but rather as a positive thing. In this regard, Sargas user Samantha says about the Café: “It’s always nice when you overhear conversations, (1) other people are talking about their WORK or, or so/ or something different. (I: Mhm.) And you get a sense of (1) (clicking tongue) eh watch/ (I: What/) what, what is going on” (interview Samantha, para. 11). Thirdly, the indefinite copresent others contribute to a disciplining and motivating work atmosphere, or as

10  The

consumption of the place is also pointed out by Liegl (2014, p. 174) for work nomads who use CWSs, cafés and similar places for working: “like the flaneur roaming the urban landscape, these nomadic workers go to ,happening places’ and let the social scenery comprised of human and non-human elements pass by.”

272

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

Tabit user Thorsten calls it, an “atmosphere of ‘We are doing something’” (interview Thorsten, para. 83). This gives Thorsten the feeling of being more productive in the CWS than when working from home, as he is less distracted here. The felt social control is in this case part of the self-control within the framework of the organization of the subjectified worker. By performing doing being busy, the co-present others create a concentrated work atmosphere, especially in the spaces for concentrated mental work, which is important for some coworkers in relation to their work, as Sargas coworker Stefan says about the Silent Floor: “[I] work on this second F/ erm floor, this Silent Floor and there it is always very quiet and (1) the people work rather (1) to themselves, so there is not much interACTION, that means it is/ and that is also what I (1) appreciate, that you can work in peace and concentrated on your/ work” (interview Stefan, para. 3). But also the concrete others are important for the coworkers—especially in the context of work teams, where the colleagues and their placement in the CWS typically have an influence on one’s own placement. For fixed-desk users, the seating arrangement is fixed together with the other employees at a table group or in the team office. However, this also applies to employees of companies with flexible workplaces, where the seating arrangement, although not explicitly defined, is also socially determined. Thus, for Tabit coworker Thorsten, the “typical” and preferred by him “work mode” (interview Thorsten, para. 36) of teamwork is manifested by the positioning of the team members with whom he works at a table: “That is actually the mode that I APPRECIATE for working. When I have the people around me at the TABLE, with whom I am currently working together” (interview Thorsten, para. 38). Tanja, on the other hand, places herself depending on the presence or absence of the other team colleagues together with them or alone at different tables in the Creative Space. She tells me about her workplace photo (see Fig. 10.5): “Well, it also always depends on who else is there from the TEAM, because/ I mean, before you came, I was working with Thilo, with Tyler at the LONG table/ I mean, it would seem weird to me now if, if YOU two were sitting at the table and I would be ALONE back there, or, I wouldn’t do that. But if no one else is in the room right now and, well, in our team, no one works a hundred percent, and some also/ or always take the opportunity (1) and work from home. That’s why it’s not like everyone is always there when I’m there. And then, when I’m ALONE, then, then I just go over there [note AB: refers to photo] (laughs).” (interview Tanja, para. 39)

For Tanja, the orientation towards her work team, with which she identifies herself, is a matter of course. However, the fact that her orientation towards the collective does not go beyond that becomes apparent from the fact that she does not sit with other coworkers when she is alone, but instead positions herself alone at a table.

10.1  Arriving and Settling in: The Own Placement …

273

Fig. 10.5   Photo of Tanja’s workplace in the Tabit Creative Space. (Photo: Tanja)

The fact that the presence of familiar others can be significant for the choice of the open space, although there is hardly any interaction with them, is shown by Sargas coworker Sina, who places herself in the Silent Floor for performing her “normal work” (interview Sina, para. 91), although she emphasizes in the interview that silence is not so important for performing her activity. She explains her choice of the Silent Floor as follows: “I have the feeling that […] upstairs [note AB: Silent Floor] there are more of the regulars. So here [note AB: Vibrant Floor] it changes somehow almost daily, I have the feeling, or changes a lot more. And upstairs there are ALWAYS the same people almost. (I: Mhm.) So SOMETIMES someone new comes along or someone leaves, but HERE there is, here there is much more, much more fluctuation. And upstairs it’s more/ somehow like, (3) I don’t know, you just KNOW each other more. I actually like that too/ You know each other by sight. So I know, that’s somehow a bit paradoxical. (laughs) (laughing) But I like that somehow, see the same people every day, even though I don’t know them at all. (Sina and I laugh.)” (interview Sina, para. 77)

More than the silence, what matters to Sina is that the “regulars” are positioned in the Silent Floor—by this she seems to mean not only those coworkers with a fixed workplace, but also those flex-desk users who regularly work in the Silent Floor, to which she also belongs. The regularly present others shape a familiar work atmosphere, which is also important in the conventional office context. Sina finds it important that she “knows” the co-present others “by sight” (see

274

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

Sect. 11.1.1), without aiming for a closer acquaintance (as in the case of Till or Sabine). She calls this “paradoxical”, which is also reflected in her choice of words: Sina refers to the concrete others, but in an indefinite form, by speaking of “one”, “the regulars” or “the same people”. After this chapter has addressed the other coworkers as elements of the sociomaterial space, the following chapter focuses on the non-human inanimate space as another spatial component.

10.1.1.3 The Things and the Inanimate Space: Instrumentality, Aesthetics, Symbolism In relation to the social goods, i.e. things and artefacts with their symbolic-material external impact, rather instrumental, symbolic as well as (judgmental-)aesthetic reasons for one’s own placement can be found in the interview material (cf. Vilnai-Yavetz et al. 2005). This is particularly evident in the case study Tabit with the two contrastively designed spatial arrangements of the Creative Space and the Classic Office, which are focused on in the following. Instrumental motives for the placement are, for example, the availability of sockets or external screens. The latter are an important criterion for the positioning in the spaces for concentrated mental work and closely linked to the type of activity: in this case activities that require a corresponding display area. In this respect, Tabit coworker Tarek explains why he initially stayed mainly in the Classic Office at Tabit: “Well, UPSTAIRS I have a second screen. (I: Mhm.) And uh (Clicks his tongue.) (3) because I, I did some DESIGN stuff and sometimes it’s handy to have a second screen. (I: Mhm.) (1) Uh (2) and then I had more programming tasks, that, (1) you don’t necessarily need a second screen for that, then I sat more downstairs. So I would actually prefer down here. If there was ALSO a screen there, I would be downstairs. (1) Always actually.” (interview Tarek, para. 143)

Although the availability of a second screen made Tarek go to the Classic Office so that he could do his work activity “DESIGN stuff [do]”, Tarek also makes clear at this point that this is the only advantage for him to go to the Classic Office.11 As will be discussed later, he has a clear aesthetic preference for the Creative

11 This

also shows that the “Free Seating” (interview Thomas, para. 124) in relation to the flex-desk concept and the flexibility of the workspaces to modify them and adapt them to one’s own needs also has limits. For example, there is the unwritten rule not to take the screens from the Classic Office to the Creative Space. Although the flexibility and change of the spaces are repeatedly emphasized in the interviews, this is done within the framework of such (unwritten) rules.

10.1  Arriving and Settling in: The Own Placement …

275

Space. Also the comfort and ergonomics of the workstations can play a role as instrumental motives in the choice of the open space. Thorsten, who usually works in the Creative Space, sees an advantage of the Classic Office in its comfortable office chairs. Accordingly, he uses this open space when he is present for a longer time: “YES, I have also worked up there. Uh (2) mainly, when I somehow uh (2) needed a more comfortable chair to work and so on. So if I somehow KNOW, I work LONGER today, if I somehow do ten hours or MORE, then (1) I go up there for half a day to work, because then office chairs are over time still BETTER than (1) than the wooden chairs down there.” (interview Thorsten, para. 72)

Coworkers who mainly work in the Classic Office, on the other hand, deny that the seats in the Creative Space are comfortable. For example, coworker Tamara with her own team office, who has not yet used the Creative Space for work, says: “YES, I couldn’t sit for hours on such a uh CHAIR down there at a WOODEN table I think. (1) Uh (1) I think I would feel it in my BACK or wherever. Then in the FLUFFY soft armchairs, YES, maybe for a little two, three hours” (interview Tamara, para. 77). There is only agreement on a certain leather armchair in the Creative Space, which is repeatedly mentioned in the interviews (as well as above by Classic Office user Troy, cf. Fig. 10.4) and emphasized in terms of its comfort. Thorsten also has his favorite place in the Creative Space, a red and white armchair, which he chose because it is comfortable and at the same time admits that the other sofas in the Creative Space are uncomfortable (cf. interview Thorsten, para. 67). More than the ergonomics and comfort of the seating, coworkers who prefer to work in the Creative Space like the appealing aesthetics. These users include the positively experienced non-human space and its external impact in their choice of the open space. In this regard, they find the spatial arrangement far from the conventional office with the special style, the wooden furniture and the warm colors aesthetically appealing. Thus, coworker Tarek explains his preference for the Creative Space: “It’s the LIGHT and the colors. I don’t like WHITE rooms, I think. Then I’d rather be downstairs. So upstairs is quite WHITE and so, I don’t know, I just find it somehow more PLEASANT here with WOOD and COLORFUL sofas” (interview Tarek, para. 147). There is also a greater openness to unconventional seating options according to the motto: “It doesn’t always have to be an office chair” (interview Tarek, para. 208). In the case of Sargas, aesthetic preferences are not only reserved for the interactive spaces, insofar as the material design of the open spaces here is less contrastive and follows a red thread. Thus,

276

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

it is ­interestingly the Silent Floor that is, as a space for concentrated mental work, experienced as “most beautiful” (interview Simon, para. 67) or in comparison to the Vibrant Floor as warmer (interview Scott_Sophie, paras. 42 ff.) by the users Scott and Sophie as well as by Simon (who are the only ones to compare the aesthetics of the open spaces in the interview). Besides the instrumentality and the aesthetics, the symbolism of the nonhuman space and the social goods that form it also plays a role in one’s own placement, which again shows especially in the Tabit sample. The non-human space must be associated with work for the coworkers and fit their ideas of work space, so that a suitable work atmosphere can be created. Thus, the Tabit users Thomas and Tamara need a conventional office workplace, as it can be found in the classic office or in their own team office, for processing their work: “YES, it is, it is for me exactly this, this with setting the frame, (I: Mhm.) laptop, TABLE, screen, keyboard, mouse, WHAM, this is now my workplace. This is my thing. And such a sofa would now, (1) it is, yes, it is not my mentality. I admire that a bit and (1) am quite fascinated, (Laughs.) but it is not my own (1) thing.” (interview Thomas, para. 69) “[I] don’t know, I think it’s more mental for me, I think I just need the OFFICE table, a chair and wham, boom, that’s work for me. (I: Mhm.) That’s maybe a bit OLD SCHOOL.” (interview Tamara, para. 77)

Thomas lists things that he needs instrumentally for work, such as laptop, keyboard, mouse and an external monitor. He and Tamara also emphasize the [office] table. These artifacts mark his close-by workplace and are at the same time also symbols of work. “Wham” appears in both interview excerpts and refers to the fact that for the two users, the presence of these artifacts provides the conditions for quickly constituting the personal work space and a suitable work atmosphere. The further surroundings and aesthetic attributes seem to be hardly relevant in this respect. Moreover, it becomes clear in both quotes that the preference for such a workplace is less part of the discursive consciousness and can be justified argumentatively, than rather guided by feelings and anchored in the practical consciousness: Thomas talks about his “thing” or his “mentality” in this respect, or Tamara says that the preference for office table and chair is “more mental”. With the table, Thomas separates his workplace from the sofa workplaces of the Creative Space. Likewise, as he also makes clear elsewhere, he admires the “work style” of those people who work in the Creative Space “on the sofa with headphones, leaning back and with the laptop on their lap and [thus] work” (interview Thomas, para. 67). The symbolic markers to constitute a personal

10.1  Arriving and Settling in: The Own Placement …

277

work space are individually different. User Tristan, who works exclusively in the Classic Office and states that he only uses the Creative Space to get coffee or drinks (“Get drinks, yes, but stay there, no” (interview Tristan, para. 65)), does not attribute any work character to the tables of the Creative Space: “And what they have there, I just get/ get a headache, those are DINING tables. (1) At which you can’t really work” (interview Tristan, para. 71). In order for the users to successfully constitute the personal work space and a corresponding work atmosphere, the material space must also match their own work (space) ideas. This also applies to those (flex-desk)coworkers who prefer to work in the spaces for interaction at places away from the conventional desk-chair combinations. For them, it is also important that the personal work space symbolizes work and also feels accordingly. Among them, there are also different positions regarding which artifacts mark an adequate workplace for them, in order to create a corresponding work atmosphere. While there are the coworkers mentioned in Thomas’ quote, who work with the laptop on their lap on the sofa, for example, Tabit coworker Timo values table and chair as symbols of work when performing his everyday work. Regarding the photo of his workplace (see Fig. 10.6), he tells me: “[I] just like the table, because it is, it is a TABLE, but it is not such an OFFICE table, which has such a classic office atmosphere. […] And up there is more OFFICE feeling with proper office TABLES, uh screens and so on. (I: Mhm.) And uh I like to work down there, where the wooden table is. (1) And uh YES, I appreci-

Fig. 10.6    Photo of Timo’s workplace in the Tabit Creative Space. (Photo: Timo)

278

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

ate it as my workplace. […] [I] like to go to the sofa in between, but to work there permanently is somehow too, yes exactly, for, for my BACK and, and also/ Somehow with the atmosphere it is for me then almost like too little work. (I: Mhm.) So, (?like once/) It, there are people, who can work well there. But for me such a table is also something that I like to have for work. But I appreciate the change uh, that I can also go to the sofa. But I like to be at, at the table, where I, where I can sit.” (interview Timo, para. 38)

Timo finds the wooden tables of the Creative Space aesthetically appealing and places himself there for his regular work. On the one hand, they mark work for him (“it is a TABLE”), but they do not radiate a “classic office atmosphere”12 like the desks in the Classic Office, which he clearly distinguishes himself from such a conventional work environment. Timo appreciates the sofa corner in the Creative Space as a place to work differently or creatively (see Sect. 10.1.1.1), but for everyday work it is too little back-friendly and radiates again for him, albeit he phrases it cautiously, “almost like too little” a work atmosphere. User Till sees it similarly, who finds the sofas “too CASUAL” for work and emphasizes: “TABLE and chair are NEEDED. (I: (laughs)) (2) But that’s ENOUGH then” (Interview Till, para. 62). The symbolism in relation to what marks an adequate place for work and the associated active creation of a work atmosphere are generally an important topic for the Tabit coworkers regarding their own placement in the CWS. Other users, on the other hand, have no problem working on the sofa or in the garden on the bench and can easily create a work atmosphere for themselves there. For these people, their mobile office, i.e. the laptop and other artefacts of work, seem to be enough to mark the place as a workplace (see in the following Sect. 10.2). Based on the dimensions of aesthetics and symbolism, it became clear how closely the non-human space is linked to the atmosphere, insofar as it co-creates it. The following chapter now addresses the importance of personal moods and spatial atmospheres in placement.

10.1.1.4 Own State of Mind and (Well)-Being in the Space13 As already became clear at several points, the explanations for choosing an open space are often quite complex in the descriptions of the interviewed coworkers and cannot be limited to single attributes, as it was characterized in the previous 12 Timo

uses the everyday concept of atmosphere here. While I do not mention this term in the interview, Timo uses it eleven times in the course of the interview. 13 This refers to the ambiguity of the expression to be (regarding both meanings: Where are you? and How are you?) or “sich befinden”” in German, as Böhme (2013b, p. 122) highlights it for the phenomenon of atmosphere (see Sect. 3.2.1).

10.1  Arriving and Settling in: The Own Placement …

279

Fig. 10.7   Photo of Till’s workplace in the Tabit Creative Space. (Photo: Till)

sections. Rather, it is an interplay of the dimensions. The effect of the space as a whole is perceived in the bodily presence and is associated with corresponding subjective feelings. This is also shown by the following interview excerpt, in which the sociomaterial space and the significance of the concrete atmospheric qualities are discussed. Tabit user Till switched to the Creative Space after spending the first time in the Classic Office, as he explains with regard to a photo of his workplace (see Fig. 10.7): “It is interesting to see that it is downstairs in the Creative Space. (I: Mhm.) When I started THERE [note AB: at Tabit], I was uh the first one, two weeks upstairs [note AB: Classic Office]. (1) I then somehow noticed that it was ALSO quite cozy downstairs [note AB: Creative Space]. Because I thought, upstairs it was QUIET and downstairs it was so busy. But downstairs it is also quiet. It is SUPERQUIET downstairs. And uh, it is a bit more OPEN and these WARM tables and/ is/ I also find cool, and the chairs are not too uncomfortable. So, hm hm/ And I somehow find the atmosphere BETTER downstairs. The coffee is also better. (I: Hm.) That means, as LONG as it stays like this with the L/ number of PEOPLE and with the, with the/ with the PEACE AND QUIET, the atmosphere is a bit nicer downstairs. It has about the same number of people. BUT it is more open, more LIGHT, a bit/ I, I like the WOODEN furniture a bit more than the white table. Uh and uh COFFEE, as I said. That is actually the reason.” (interview Till, para. 43)

280

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

Although it is not noticeable from the photo14, Till draws an atmospheric picture of the Creative Space when talking about the photo, in order to explain why he now has his workplace there and not in the Classic Office (which seems to surprise him himself).15 The development of the spaces and their atmospheres was a process for him: Thus, he realizes that the atmosphere initially attributed to the Creative Space differs from the experienced atmosphere in terms of its communicative character regarding busyness and quietness. Quietness seems to be an important criterion for him for performing his activity (see Sect. 10.1.1.1), which is why he initially worked in the Classic Office. In his own experience, Till now finds that it is “also quiet”, even “SUPERQUIET” as well as “ALSO quite cozy” in the Creative Space. Apart from that, he likes the Creative Space more aesthetically, as the contrasting (although often accompanied by the relativizing pronoun “a bit”) comparison to the Classic Office shows: Here, “the atmosphere is a bit nicer”, the space is “a bit more OPEN16” and has “more LIGHT” and the warm “WOODEN furniture”17 also appeals to him “a bit more than the white table”. Regarding the seating comfort, Till relativizes that the wooden chairs of the Creative Space are at least “not too uncomfortable” (but probably also not too comfortable). The example of Till shows that there are coworkers who care about the space in relation to their work activity in terms of aesthetic and affective judgments and the feeling of the spaces (cf. Liegl 2014, p. 179). The present people seem to be worth mentioning for Till only in connection with the “number of PEOPLE” and the associated quietness as part of the atmosphere and remain indeterminate: Who is actually present seems to be unimportant to Till (cf. Sect. 10.1.1.2). Based on his description of quietness, it becomes clear 14 Cf.

Sect.  6.4 Critical Reflection on the Research Design. also picks up the term atmosphere again himself, without it having been used by me as the interviewer in the interview. The term is mentioned for the first time at this point and is used a total of three times by Till in the interview. 16 Other interviewees also attribute “openness” to the interactive spaces. Another example is Sargas coworker Sabine, who says about the Sargas Café: “I also think so, yes, with the kitchen it is so OPEN. (2) I think that’s nice. Yes, where there is an open atmosphere.” (Sabine, para. 85) Openness has, similar to warmth, a synesthetic character, whereby “the question of the generators, […] i.e. by which arrangements one can evoke the experience of such synesthesias” (Böhme 2013b, p. 124) is not always clear from the context. Openness can refer more strongly to the design of the symbolic-material space or to the communicative character of atmospheres. 17 He specifically speaks of the “WARM tables”, which he rates as “also cool”. What at first glance appears as a linguistic contradiction in the sense of an oxymoron, “cool” is used here as a scene word to express his liking for the tables. 15 Till

10.1  Arriving and Settling in: The Own Placement …

281

that atmospheres are experienced individually differently (insofar as each coworker synthesizes his/her own spaces) and not only the atmospheres themselves, but also the experience of them change over time and can thus differ from the first impression. When choosing a place in the CWS, not only the mood of the space, but also the own state of mind and how well it fits the atmosphere of the space plays a role, as the example of Tabit Coworker Theo shows: “Up there [note AB: Classic Office] it’s a bit quieter, (?especially) you’re less addressed (laughs), there’s less talking. And TODAY is such a day where I want more silence (laughs, I laughs along with the background knowledge that Theo is hungover). And uh down there it’s more like, when I’m physically not feeling so well” (Interview Theo, paras. 91 ff.). Theo prefers the work setting concentrated mental work when he is not in the mood to talk; the work setting interaction on the other hand when he feels physically unwell, although he does not elaborate on the latter. Besides the health condition, also the own desire or reluctance to perform a task can influence the choice of the open space. That the atmosphere of the aestheticized lively spaces for interaction or the outdoor spaces can also motivate to do less pleasant tasks, as Sargas Coworker Sina describes:18 “So DOWN [note AB: Café] is like, when, when I have to concentrate on SOMETHING that I have no desire for at all, then I think to myself, okay, then I’ll get myself a nice piece of cake and a good cup of coffee and sit down there and maybe have a few nice people around me, so nice to look at (Laughing both.)” (interview Sina, para. 91). Besides the positioning in the Sargas Café, whose atmosphere is co-determined by “nice” co-present others (who are “nice to look at”—see Sect. 10.1.1.2), Sina explains how she also actively contributes to a pleasant and motivating atmosphere for herself, by rewarding herself with a “nice piece of cake and a good cup of coffee”. As already became clear from Samantha’s quote at the beginning of Sect. 10.1 (“[I]f I want sunshine I can go OUTSIDE.”), the weather can also be a factor in

18 Whereas

at another point in the interview and from the observations it becomes clear that Sina here rather describes a hypothetical change of spaces, especially with regard to the Sargas Café, which she does not practice so often in reality (see footnote 6 in Chap. 10). Thus, she limits herself at the beginning of the interview by saying that she can “really only talk about the second floor” (interview Sina, para. 5) when it comes to describing the (currently as well as otherwise perceived) mood in Sargas.

282

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

choosing one’s own place—in this case it is the nice weather, which makes working in the Sargas Garden or on the sidewalk in front of the Tabit Creative Space possible in the first place. So Samantha says about her workplace in the Sargas Garden: “I was WORKING out in the, IN the orchard (I: Mhm.) at Sargas. Ehm and that’s, that’s, that’s really quite special to have a (1) OUTdoor space ehm (clicking tongue) with sunshine and trees and ehm to be very sheltered and you can sit in this beautiful autumn (1) autumn sunshine. Ehm and work. It SOMEtimes is a bit hard to see my computer screen. So this morning I wasn’t, I wasn’t coding for example, while I was more sort of ehm (1) planning for this meeting I had. And ehm (2) (clicking tongue) yes, and getting a bit of up to date with a few other things. And (clicking tongue) ehm (1) because it’s hard to concentrate ehm (1) OUTSIDE. But it, it’s still, it’s still nice to, to really have that option.” (interview Samantha, para. 59)

In this interview excerpt, the outdoor space is attributed special atmospheric qualities that make working in such an environment appear as a privilege. It becomes clear that Samantha places herself in the Garden mainly because of its atmosphere and adapts her activities accordingly to the distracting, sunny space. The possibility of working outside is appreciated by some coworkers in both CWSs studied. The sidewalk in front of the Tabit Creative Space as a temporarily appropriated space by the coworkers means so much to the Tabit coworker Timo that he staged a photo of it for the interview: On the day he took photos for the interview, no one was outside. So he placed a chair from the Creative Space on the sidewalk to photograph it as a symbol (see AP10 and Fig. 10.8). He tells me about it in the interview: “There I photographed a chair IN FRONT of Tabit. (I: Mhm.) Because I like to work outside from time to time or when I talk to someone, I also like to go OUTSIDE and talk OUTSIDE with the people, uh to get a little of fresh air, to uh hm somehow (1) just be in OUTSIDE and not in the OFFICE. Many people uh wish that they, when it is a nice day, can also go outside. And so you can do that a little bit by simply taking either just a CHAIR or a chair and a TABLE, go outside and then off to FREEDOM.” (Interview Timo, para. 51)

The positive highlighting of the outdoor space (as freedom in contrast to the enclosed space) and the associated freedom to appropriate it self-determinedly during working hours underline the great importance he attaches to it. Other users, on the other hand, cannot imagine working outside on their laptop for instrumental reasons, either because the sun would make it impossible to see any-

10.1  Arriving and Settling in: The Own Placement …

283

Fig. 10.8   Outdoor space in front of Tabit (Photo: Timo)

thing on the screen or because sockets are missing, or in terms of symbolism, that working outside or on the sofa does not fit their own idea of work. After the different basic action-guiding dimensions in relation to one’s own placement in the CWS have been explained, the following chapter goes a step further and looks at the positioning of flex-desk users in the open space, who look for a new workplace with each visit.

10.1.2 Positioning of Flex-Desk Users “So I do this FLEX desk. (1) That means, I always come with my computer and (1) sit down somewhere, usually (clears throat) at the place that I like best, the one that v/ (1) uh or another space that is then free.” (interview Stefan, para. 41)

Once the choice has been made for a certain container space, it is necessary to position oneself at a certain place in relation to the other spatial elements. While this is a routine process for fixed-desk users (cf. Petendra 2015, p. 210), for flexdesk users the daily repositioning and positioning in the CWS and the setting up of the place as their own workplace is part of their work routine. Potential workplaces must be marked as flex desks on the one hand, in order to be recognized as such. This is done by their location in a—typically aestheticized and interactionpromoting—open space, where there are only flex desks or—in the spaces for

284

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

concentrated mental work—by a corresponding symbolic marking as flex desk (in the Tabit Classic Office by stickers on the table, in the Sargas Silent Floor by picture frames). On the other hand, potential workplaces should not already have been occupied by other users (by positioning their bodies and/or personal belongings) as secondary territory. That certain spatial characteristics facilitate one’s own work space constitution was already shown in the last section. To what extent flex-desk users also develop routines and preferences regarding the concrete positioning in the open space will now be examined in more detail. As an introduction, the statements of Sargas flex-desk user Sandro are considered, which he makes about his workplace photo in the Silent Floor (see Fig. 10.9): “Sandro: The (1) DESK is usually the same, but it changes. I mean, there I have some favorite places also, //eh/ // I: //Ehm, // which ones? Sandro: (1) Hm (1) well, this one has changed. (1) This one is quite NEW. They’ve setup a new table there ehm recently. (1) Eh there are also (2) the fixed ones that eh are booked by other people, so I cannot USE. But (1) among the, (1) the OPEN desks ehm I like to be (1) usually close to a window, but (2) ehm, not to expose maybe my screen to everyone passing, because you always have this sort of (1) eh sometimes you need a bit of privacy or intimacy to, to work. Ehm, so ya, not completely in the corner, but not completely eh by the (1) BATHroom or by the, the kitchen.” (interview Sandro, paras. 21 ff.)

Fig. 10.9   Photo of Sandro’s workplace in the Sargas Silent Floor. (Photo: Sandro)

10.1  Arriving and Settling in: The Own Placement …

285

The fact that Sandro’s desk is usually the same, but also changes, shows on the one hand that Sandro seems to have preferences and routines regarding his own placement in the open space. On the other hand, it expresses the flexibility as part of the coworking concept. Sandro emphasizes elsewhere that he sees it as an advantage not to have a fixed workplace and enjoys the change regarding his own placement in the CWS, sometimes also in the Vibrant Floor (cf. ibid., paras. 5 ff., see also below Sect. 10.3). In this respect, his first sentence can be understood to imply that he usually has one (or more) preferred desk(s), but sometimes also likes to position himself elsewhere. Perhaps, however, it is not always he who initiates the repositioning, but rather that his preferred desk is already occupied by another person. The fact that changes brought about from outside lead to new positions is also shown by the following section: The photographed table was only recently set up by the operators. Afterwards, Sandro formulates in his own words the distinction between fix and flex desks as two categories of desks: The “fixed ones”, which he is not allowed to use, and the “OPEN desks”, which are open to his choice. In this regard, his usual positioning in the open space is close to the window and not exposed, so that the screen is protected from prying eyes and he has appropriate privacy. Sandro qualifies his statement by adding that he does not want to completely isolate himself with his positioning in the open space, just as he would not take a passage place (near the bathroom or the kitchen). As in Sandro’s case, it is not uncommon for the users to have preferences for a certain workplace or several certain workplaces, although these are individually different. Similar to the results of the study on flexible offices by Petendra (2015), however, it can also be recorded for this study that, as in the above example of Sandro, protected places at the edge and with proximity to the window are popular (cf. ibid., p. 160). For example, Tabit Coworker Till explains his preference for a place at the wall of the Creative Space with a view into the room: “I like to look into the room, (I: Mhm.) because that gives me a bit/ Because then, when I look out, I see a bit of the PEOPLE, instead of into the WALL. (I: Mhm.) Because that is the IDEA, that I feel a bit in a WORK environment, then I don’t have to look into the wall.” (interview Till, para. 43). While Till’s preferred positioning is based on the fact that he can passively experience and consume the social atmosphere of an office (without necessarily interacting with the co-present others—cf. Sect. 10.1.1.2), Sargas Café user and illustrator Sheldon adds another aspect: “I QUITE like sitting in places which are on the outs/ outside of rooms, where I c/ I, as I say where I can observe people, NOT because I’m necessarily going to draw them. But just because you’re open to, more open to people in the situation, rather

286

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

than if you are facing the DOOR or something. (I: Mhm.) Then you’re not going to, you’re not very (1) likely to speak to anyone if you’re just concentrating on what you’re doing.” (interview Sheldon, para. 48)

For Sheldon, looking into the room and observing the co-present others goes along with being open to interactions with others in the context of doing being open—in contrast to a place with a view of the wall. That I also prefer the view into the room becomes clear to me in the course of my self-observation, when I position myself in the well-occupied Sargas Vibrant Floor at a window workplace, with my back to the action (field notes BP07, para. 25). Knowing that the co-present others are behind me, I find it noticeably difficult to concentrate, as I feel observed (ibid.). I endure the feeling of being observed in my researcher role, while in the sole role as a coworker I would probably have changed places already. In the empty Vibrant Floor, however, I was still able to enjoy the view of the garden the day before and focus well on my work (cf. field notes BP06). The windows, the associated view and the natural light shape the spatial experience (cf. Böhme 2013b, p. 97) and the perceived atmosphere significantly and are repeatedly emphasized in the user interviews of both case studies when it comes to the preferred positions in the open space19: “[I] usually sit there, either, there, where there is still SPACE, (1) or that I can look out, that is, out of the, out of the WINDOW.” (interview Thorsten, para. 67) “I really appreciate to, (1) to work in this space, because of these wonderful windows. (1) And (2) I always try to get one table next to the windows. Usually I get, always get THIS one. [Reference photo workplace] (I: Mhm, mhm.) And ehm YA. (3) You have sunlight since (1) eight in the morning until eight in the afternoon. (I: Mhm.) (3) It’s really nice.” (interview Sebastian_2, para. 3) “I PREFER the one, which is here [note AB: points to the window seat on another photo of the Vibrant Floor see Fig. 10.10] because it has more natural light. And

19 Although

the direct sunlight can also be a hindrance for the work, as Sabine, for example, addresses: “I don’t like to sit where a lot of sun shines, because then I can’t see well anymore. (I: Mhm.) (1) Or, yes. First of all, on the screen. So I don’t sit so that the sun shines on my screen. And I don’t sit so that it shines directly into my eyes” (interview Sabine, para. 67). In addition, the view from the window also plays a role for the regeneration in the break (cf. interview Sina, para. 47). While looking at the garden, breathing inthe outside air and silently synthesizing and observing of what is happening there, the personal space can be extended by the outside space despite being in the Silent Floor.

10.1  Arriving and Settling in: The Own Placement …

287

you have THE, the set-up, (1) that I took a photo [note AB: cf. photo]. (1) So I, I really like this. (I: Mhm.) This is my favorite SPACE. Because you have natural light, windows, there’s a lot of/ there’s like two TABLES. So I feel that there’s like more SPACE. And I really like to have plants around me. So (laughing) for the reason I took a photo of (1) of that. (I: The plants.) Because I like these little things that (1) make me feel like home.” (Sophie, onterview Scott_Sophie, paras. 111 ff.)

Sophie’s detail photo (cf. Fig. 10.10) does not show her currently occupied workplace at the time of taking the photograph, but her preferred work “setup”, which involves a large double window, desk and chair, a ladder with two plants on it, and an old floor lamp with a fabric lampshade—the artifacts are positioned in the corner next to the wall directly in front of the window. The arrangement is turned away from the events in the open space and lets the user look out of the window. In the quote, Sophie emphasizes not only the importance of natural light, but also that of the plants as part of a spatial ensemble that appeals to her, which evokes a homely atmosphere and thus a feeling of being at home. The different dimensions that were explained in the previous sections in relation to one’s own placement and the choice of the open space in general play a role as well in the concrete positioning at a place in the open space. Thus, it is again the activity and its requirements, the non-human inanimate space in its instrumentality, aesthetics and symbolism, the co-present others as well as moods and feelings that influence the (preferred) positioning at a specific place. In relation to the co-present others and the communicative atmosphere, Sargas -Café

Fig. 10.10   Sophie’s preferred work setup. (Photo: Sophie)

288

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

user Sheldon distinguishes the tables in the Café according to their different coding regarding the potential to interact with the co-present others or to focus on one’s own work and assigns these groups of people: “I like the tables on the edge of the room eh which are facing the rest of the room. Eh. (2) Mainly because I don’t, if y/ eh (1) to be fair, if you sit on the LONG table at the BACK eh it’s kind of a bit to you, you can’t really focus on anything you’re doing. Because (1) I’ve, I see that as kind of like a social table. Eh and, eh and it’s quite, it’s not very sturdy. (Laughing) (I: Mhm.) Whereas the tables on the side which are near the radiator have power (1) plugs, and (1) there’s only four seats on them. So and eh there are more, they’re more for the introverted I’d say amongst the (1) people here. Eh which is myself, I guess.” (interview Sheldon, para. 59)

Sheldon makes it clear that he prefers the four-seater tables in the corner of the café with a view of the room. While he calls the long table in the back of the café a “social table” (see Sect. 8.2.2), where he can’t really focus on his work according to his experience, he attributes better instrumental conditions for (focused) work to the four-seater tables, namely heat20 and electricity (unlike the not very robust social table, where sockets are missing and where it also seems to be colder for Sheldon). In addition, he assigns the four-seater tables to the more introverted café visitors, to whom he also counts himself (as opposed to the more extroverted ones at the “social table”). Section 10.3 deals in more depth with the flex-desk users and their attitudes towards the flex-desk membership as well as placement practices that are opposed to the flex-desk principle. The following will now focus on retreat spaces in everyday work, including both fix-desk users and flex-desk users.

10.1.3 Retreat Spaces To conclude this chapter, the question arises how spaces of retreat are constituted when open-space users have the need for more privacy, want to escape the noise level, work concentrated without interruptions or interactively exchange with

20 While

the importance of light is repeatedly emphasized in the user interviews in relation to one’s own positioning, other sensually perceived attributes of the space, such as heat or cold, or air quality, play a subordinate role in the interviews, which may also have to do with the visual method of photo interviews. If air quality or temperature are addressed in the interviews, then mainly when there is a deviation from the individual needs.

10.1  Arriving and Settling in: The Own Placement …

289

physically present or absent others, without being disturbed or without disturbing the co-present others. In relation to the noise level as a disturbing factor, I repeatedly collect the experience in the context of my self-observations as an active coworker that I cannot focus on concentrated work in the interactive spaces, as also in the following excerpt in the Tabit Creative Space: “[I] just can’t work. To my right in the corner with leather armchairs and swivel stools, people are talking. To my left at the football table, people are playing. The intern next to me is skyping. And I, I can’t concentrate. I decide on the spot to change the location RIGHT NOW and go upstairs [note AB: to the Classic Office].” (Field notes AP26, para. 6)

The retreat space that I want to switch to in this example is the Classic Office as a space for concentrated mental work. Not only do I experience such disturbances, but also some users report them in the interview, here then mainly in relation to the spaces for concentrated mental work (see also Sect. 13.1.1). In everyday CWS life, physical and inner retreat spaces play an important role in avoiding violations of personal space, such as noise nuisance, unwanted listening or also the insight into personal documents or the screen (see Petendra 2015, p. 205 ff.). Petendra (2015, p. 206) states in her study that the surveyed employees in the flexible office create a “protected atmosphere” (ibid.) by withdrawing into an inner space by blocking out all activities outside the personal space (which I fail to do in the above excerpt) or by temporarily changing the location, such as by moving to a meeting room (ibid., p. 206 f.). Location changes, according to Petendra, are characteristic of the flexible office and hardly occur in classic office forms (ibid., p. 207). These results can also be transferred to CWS users. As will be further elaborated on the use of headphones (see following Sect. 10.2), a withdrawal also takes place in the CWS by constituting one’s own inner spaces through creating one’s own sound atmosphere and making oneself unapproachable through associated practices of doing being busy. In addition, physical spaces and associated places of retreat are also provided in both examined CWSs. Thus, there are three meeting rooms in Tabit and a multifunctional space in Sargas, which take over this function. In relation to the Tabit meeting rooms and the associated work setting, user Timo explains what activities he can perform there: “Next, I photographed the large meeting room (see Fig. 10.11), (1) which is also part of the infrastructure that Tabit OFFERS. That means, if I have a meeting with a CUSTOMER, uh, I can, I can take such a meeting room, or if I have to discuss something INTERNALLY with people and maybe need to be ISOLATED or just be

290

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

Fig. 10.11   Excerpt meeting room Tabit Classic Office. (Photo: Timo) able to draw something conceptually on a FLIP CHART, need a projector to present something, uh, I have the opportunity to do that in the coworking space.” (interview Timo, para. 58)

The work setting of the Sargas multifunctional space also provides for activities of relaxation21. To support this, the room is furnished like a living room and radiates a warm, cozy atmosphere. Only a flip chart indicates the area of work. In this regard, coworker Serge, for example, stays here to play the guitar for himself: “(Figure 10.12) Yeah, again this ROOM. And this is me playing the GUITAR (I: AH, Ya.) (Serge laughs) And this was like after I worked, finished work one evening, I stayed a bit longer HERE and I play the guitar and ya, spent like half an hour, one hour here.” (interview Serge, para. 62)

On the Sargas Silent Floor, there is also a so-called Private Office, which is intended for concentrated mental work, although the retreat here is mainly limited to the visual screen. In addition to these retreat places provided by the operators, the stairwell or the outdoor space is also used in everyday CWS life.

21 This

is also noted at the entrance door of the Vibrant Floor: There the room is labeled as “Meeting room” and “Nap room”.

10.1  Arriving and Settling in: The Own Placement …

291

Fig. 10.12   Section of multifunctional space Sargas Vibrant Floor. (Photo: Serge)

Another practice of withdrawal that is outlined by Petendra for the flexible office, but that can also be prevented by the “decision-making power of individual employees”, is closing of the door (Petendra 2015, p. 207). This is probably also the reason why this is observable in the examined CWSs mainly among users of team offices or separate areas, where the number of involved people is limited. To withdraw, they close their own office door or the curtain here.22 Tamara justifies the decision for her own team office and thus the possibility to close the door also with the fact that she does not want to disturb the other coworkers and also to have a protected framework that allows her to curse without the others noticing: “[W]e just wanted to make sure that we can close the door, IF and especially because I have to make phone calls from time to time and that is eh tendentially very quiet in the coworking space [note AB: Here Tamara refers to the Classic Office,

22 Cf. the results of Petendra (2015, p. 208) on the importance of the door as a “boundary between privacy and community” in the cell office.

292

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

on whose floor her team office is located], the people work with headphones, GENERALLY, which is also good, then you are not disturbed, eh but when you make a phone call yourself, then you have the feeling that you disturb the others. (I: Mhm.) (1) And THAT is maybe a little/ Yes, that is maybe something that was IMPORTANT for us [note AB: from the perspective of her start-up] and we also like to CURSE and then we are glad that not everyone hears it. (Tamara and I laugh)” (interview Tamara, para. 19)

At the same time, the open door as the standard configuration of their office is for her a symbolic expression of the “coworking character”, as Tamara emphasizes: “And the door is always OPEN and so through that you have the coworking character a bit nevertheless” (interview Tamara, para. 11). The closed door separates the users from the external events and indicates that they do not want to be disturbed. The open door, on the other hand, signals openness and closeness and invites passers-by to stop and come in. The door has a signaling effect in the sense of the practices doing being busy and doing being open. In the open spaces of the CWSs themselves, there seems to be a shared consensus on the closed door (for the Silent Floor) or open door (for the other open spaces) as the standard configuration, which is rarely changed by individual coworkers. In everyday CWS life, the meeting rooms in Tabit and the multifunctional space in Sargas are used extensively by the coworkers and operators.23 However, the intended physical-material retreat spaces and associated places in both examined CWSs are not always sufficient, as is repeatedly discussed in the interviews. There are some users among the interview partners who wish for more meeting rooms or more specifically possibilities for making phone calls, places to relax or for a confidential conversation. Especially the Sargas Silent Floor users depend on spaces for making phone calls, as coworker Serge explains: “I think the only thing MISSing in the layout is basically like some (1) ya meeting rooms. Yeah I mean, there is only THIS ONE here (I: Mhm.) which is like a meeting room. But also like sometimes I just need to make a CALL or people just need to make a call. So they could also like eh/ (1) I mean a SMALLER room (1) can also like be OKAY for them, they don’t need like eh ALL this room just to make a Skype call.” (interview Serge, para. 168)

23 There is a formal regulation for booking the rooms in both examined CWSs. In Tabit, the booking of the meeting rooms is done via the CWS management software. In the case of Sargas, there is a weekly plan on the door, in which one can sign in.

10.1  Arriving and Settling in: The Own Placement …

293

A special problem that affects Sarga Silent Floor users like him is that they are forced to leave the open space for phone calls or Skype calls due to the work setting (cf. ibid., para. 169). In everyday CWS life, besides the multifunctional space, the staircase, the open space of the Vibrant Floor or the Garden are also used as phone rooms, which however do not always meet the requirements as retreat spaces. For example, Serge notes that the noise level and the lack of privacy can be problematic on the Vibrant Floor (ibid., p. 171). In this respect, more container rooms for phone calls are desired for Sargas.

10.1.4 Intermediate Conclusion: Arriving and Settling in In the course of spatial self-organization, the coworkers place themselves in the CWS in such a way that they have optimal environmental qualities for designing their personal work space and creating a corresponding work atmosphere to pursue their daily work. By showing the different action-guiding dimensions in relation to one’s own placement, it became clear that these are influenced by much more than one’s own activity and the associated requirements and that the perspective of activity based working is shortened in this respect. Likewise, the co-present others are important, whether as indeterminate others and part of the communicative atmosphere or as concrete others, such as team colleagues or familiar others. In addition, the non-human inanimate space and its things can also be relevant when it comes to one’s own placement in the CWS—not only instrumentally, but also with regard to its aesthetics or symbolism. In relation to the latter, it was shown that the personal work space must symbolize and also feel like work for the coworkers in order to create a corresponding individual work atmosphere. This is associated with inter-individually varying symbolic markers. As also emphasized, the individual dimensions worked out overlap in reality and their interplay finds its expression in the more complex phenomenon of atmosphere. Thus, another insight of this chapter is that the feeling in the space and the sensing of the atmosphere as well as the associated feelings or emotions play a substantial role in one’s own placement. In other words: The process of spacing is largely (co-)determined by feelings. This also applies to the concrete positions in the open space, which are taken by flex-desk coworkers as part of the daily repositioning. Although the preferences regarding one’s own positioning in the CWS are different and the concrete positioning also depends on the available free seats, it can be stated that protected seats and the associated privacy as well as the (over)view into the space and window-near seats, the available view and the natural light are rather preferred. What practices flex-desk coworkers have to

294

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

occupy preferred seats will be discussed in more detail in Sect. 10.3. Finally, the retreat spaces apart from the open spaces were examined more closely. Besides the constitution of inner retreat spaces, physical-material spaces and the associated places that are intended for retreat are also resorted to, as well as other open spaces or intermediate spaces, such as the staircase or the outdoor space. Resorting to retreat spaces is essential for the functioning of coworking in everyday life, so that disturbance-free coworking, especially in the spaces for concentrated mental work, is possible. This underlines the need for more physical retreat spaces in both operating cases. This also points to the fact that working in the open space, and here especially again in the spaces for concentrated mental work, can also be associated with difficulties in the form of a restrictive work setting or violations of personal space (cf. Sect. 13.1.1).

10.2 Setting Up: Positioning at the Place and Involved Artifacts This chapter takes a closer look at the concrete workplaces of the users. While fixed-desk users have the possibility to personalize their place as a primary territory permanently and to adapt it to their (work) needs, flex-desk coworkers have to position themselves not only anew with every visit, but also to arrange the chosen place in the open space as their temporary workplace so that they can work on it. The positioning and activating of the brought along work equipment (and possibly other things) is done routinely for experienced flex-desk users like me, as I note on my first visit to P-Space: “After a moment of hesitation where to position myself best, I simply sit down at the third table in the row next to Karin. A coworker in his forties sits opposite me […]. He hints at the power strip: ‘Here you have power.’ Then he turns a sign around, which stands on the middle table of the row on his side. ‘And this is the wifi password.’ I answer: ‘That is always useful’, and thank him. The coworker knows what is important for setting up the workplace. Otherwise, setting up my workplace is easy: I unpack my laptop, my cable bag, from which I take out laptop cable and mouse, flip open the laptop with a swing and start it. I sit down on the office swivel chair, […] enter the wifi password, open the Word document—my workplace is ready.” (Field notes P_P-Space)

The description shows that there are only a few necessary conditions for setting up the elementary laptop workplace: A free space, wifi password, possibly a power outlet (as part of the infrastructure of the CWS) as well as the laptop itself

10.2  Setting Up: Positioning at the Place and Involved Artifacts

295

and possibly cables or computer mouse, which the coworker brings along. These few basic and at the same time sufficient requirements for the laptop workplace are also addressed in the user interviews, such as by Sargas flex-desk user Serge: “I don’t need th/ eh so MUCH eh (1) facilities to work. I just need a DESK and (?as a) a CHAIR and (smiling) WIFI. (I smiles) So (1) as long as I have all these three, it’s, it’s okay” (interview Serge, paras. 101 f.). In the following, the workplaces of the coworkers are examined more closely and it is investigated which social goods—apart from table or desk respectively and chair (or bench, sofa, stool, armchair etc.)—are involved in the constitution of the personal work space. For this purpose, the photographs of the flexible and fixed workplaces and the corresponding descriptions in the interviews are brought into the focus of analysis. First, using the example of the workplace photo of Sargas coworker Sandro, a concrete and typical flex-desk workplace for the sample is reconstructed. Based on this, it is shown which things are used to set up the everyday workplace and how they are positioned. Subsequently, also introducing with Sandro, the statements of the coworkers from the interviews are consulted and illuminated how the coworkers reconstruct their workplaces based on the photos and what is important to them in this regard. It turns out that most of the workplaces are reduced workplaces that appear impersonal and radiate mobility. In the interviews, the discourse on the paperless office is repeatedly taken up and the associated mobility of the workplace, which is often positively evaluated. In this regard, two significant technical artifacts of the mobile office are examined more closely and their attributions of meaning are worked out: Laptop and headphones—both also important artifacts of the practices of doing being busy. The present chapter is concluded with an excursion on the meaning of the physicalmaterial space in the context of teamwork.

10.2.1 Workplaces and Associated Reconstructions The following analysis will first focus on the workplace photos. To introduce the topic, the workplace photo of Sargas coworker Sandro, which was taken on the Silent Floor, will be looked at again (see Fig. 10.9, p. 281). The camera perspective from above shows the occupied territory of desk and office chair as well as the cropped environment. This indicates that Sandro perceives more than table and chair as his workplace. Sandro’s workplace is one of two opposite desks and is marked as a flex desk by the picture frame, which is hinted at on the right edge of the picture. The table group is separated from the other side of the space by a plant arrangement—this is the already mentioned plant wall. The arrangement

296

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

of the plants and a column as limiting elements put the place in a niche that provides protection (see Sect. 10.1.2). The things on the table top are unordered and appear randomly arranged, which indicates that the photo was taken spontaneously. In the center of the photo and in the middle of the table there is a laptop, which has been personalized on the keyboard area by two stickers. The laptop is framed by a water bottle, an empty glass, over-ear headphones, a pencil case, a book and gloves. A jacket hangs over the office chair, and a backpack stands on the floor next to the plant wall. The workplace looks reduced and comparatively impersonal, signaling transience and mobility: Sandro could pack all the items he brought with him in his backpack again at any time. Except for the brightly lit laptop screen, the work itself is not (yet) visible in the photo. The photos of the other flex-desk workplaces also show the typical formation described above, in which the personal work space is reduced to a few items and focuses mainly on the laptop. In addition, the smartphone or phone as a mobile communication device, headphones, computer mouse or notebook or paper and pen as visible artifacts of work appear repeatedly. On the tables, there are also drinks, typically in the form of a glass or a bottle and/or a coffee cup and/or something to eat positioned within the action radius. The positioned things can be cleared away within a short time, which makes the workplace mobile. Such reduced and mobile workplaces correspond to the flex desk concept and the cleandesk policy (see Petendra 2015, p. 143 for the flexible office). Except for one photo (by Tabit Coworker Theo, see Sect. 10.4) all photographed workplaces involve tabletops. Which and how many things are used in everyday work and how the personal items are arranged on the tabletops (filled vs. reduced, spread out vs. compact, chaotic vs. orderly) varies individually.24 While the majority of the photographed workplaces appear comparatively empty, others appear occupied by the positioning of the things and their relation to each other, which applies especially to fixed-desk workplaces, which are set up for permanence, but also to some flexible-desk workplaces (see the two flexible workplaces of Tarek and Stefan in Fig. 10.13). The things seem randomly arranged on some of the photographed workplaces and thus seem to reflect the process of working. On other workplace photos, on the other hand, the things are arranged in an orderly manner on the tabletop, which sometimes makes the impression as

24 How

exactly the design of the personal work space and the associated arrangement of the personal items is done for working (well) is hardly verbalized in the interviews (insofar as this is part of the practical awareness).

10.2  Setting Up: Positioning at the Place and Involved Artifacts

297

Fig. 10.13   Left: reduced flexible-desk workplace (Photo: Tarek), right: occupied flexibledesk workplace. (Photo: Stefan)

if working has not been commenced yet or as if the coworker is no longer working.25 While the positioned artifacts of the flexible-desk workplaces can also be quickly stowed away according to the clean desk policy, the fixed desks are usually less mobile: The fixed workplaces are typically more occupied by their users and marked as primary territories, which are also occupied by them when the users are not present. For example, Tamara’s fixed workplace, which is located in the team office, is more personalized and oriented towards permanence than the previously described mobile places of the flexible-desk users, although it does not look overloaded (see Fig. 10.14). On Tamara’s desk, there are also things that are not involved in the current work process, such as trade magazines or a packet soup. The artifacts arranged on the table do not fit easily into a bag and mark the place as a primary territory. As will be shown later, there are also flex-desk users who claim their preferred workplace in such a way that it looks externally like a fixed workplace (see Sect. 10.3). For the majority of the photographed workplaces—whether fix or flex desks— it is also characteristic that the personalization of the workplace is limited to work-related artifacts and things of the reproduction of one’s own labor power (such as coffee cup, glass or food), which nevertheless typically make them look

25 The

latter may also be related to the task of taking a photo of the workplace and indicate that the workplace was deliberately staged for the photo.

298

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

Fig. 10.14   Photo of Tamara’s workplace in team office. (Photo: Tamara)

impersonal26. Personal things that are not work-related, such as drawings or photos, can hardly be found even on the photos of the fixed workplaces.27 After looking at the photos of the users’ workplaces, the question arises how the workplaces are reconstructed in the interviews. To do this, I first go back to Sargas flex-desk user Sandro: In the interview, he begins the reconstruction of his workplace based on the photo as follows: “THIS is eh my desk this morning. (2) Ehm (1) so I bring everything in the morning with me. Eh (2) my headphones, my laptop, my water bottle, ehm I borrowed the glass from the cafeteria. (I: Mhm.) Ehm and THAT’S ya, what I carry on my BAG and what I bring HERE. And I setup my desk (1) ehm, so that’s what I need to work, eh phone and laptop are my main eh (smiling) working instruments.” (interview Sandro, para. 21)

26  Whereas

the virtual space that is accessible via laptop can in turn be very personally designed. That is why the screen contents of the photographed laptops were also anonymized. 27 With two exceptions among the Tabit fix-desk users: first, a colorful party hat on Troy’s workplace photo, whose context is not clarified in the interview and whose meaning could just as well be work-related. And second, Tristan’s miniature designer chair, which is only indirectly work-related, as will be explained later.

10.2  Setting Up: Positioning at the Place and Involved Artifacts

299

Sandro introduces the description of the photo with a temporal reference, saying that the photographed desk is a photo from the morning. This indicates that he follows the conventions of normal work by starting his workday in the morning as well. His mobile office fits in his backpack: He emphasizes that he brings everything he needs to work in the morning28 and lists his headphones, his laptop and his water bottle. He sets up the temporary flex desk so that it becomes his desk. By positioning the things he brings with him, the workplace and its boundaries are marked and the table is occupied as a secondary territory that belongs to him at least for the morning or day. The phrase “And I setup my desk” also indicates that this is a routine process that results in a recurring arrangement or setup of things that are important to him to create a suitable work atmosphere. Sandro uses the technical term “working instruments” that he needs to work, which includes (mobile) phone and laptop as the most important, which (unlike the book, which is shown in the photo, but not mentioned by Sandro) seem to be a fixed part of his workplace and do not vary (although the phone is not visible in the photo, as he uses it to take the picture). In addition to the arrangement, there are also things that he borrows from Sargas, such as the glass from the Café. As in Sandro’s case, the workplace photos and the corresponding interview excerpts show that the personal work space is synthesized more or less close to the body by the interviewed users, which is characteristic of the descriptions of the body-centered work spaces in the flexible office, as Petendra (2015, p. 139 ff.) elaborates in her study. In the narrow sense, the workplace is reduced to the tabletop and the things used in everyday work, above all the laptop. In contrast, there are also coworkers with a somewhat broader understanding of work space, which includes windows, other people or the view into the open space and thus usually clarifies the importance of the respective aspect for the user. Sandro’s workplace stands for a number of other reduced and mobile flex-desk workplaces, which are positively connoted in the corresponding narratives, as is evident from the examples of Samantha or Tarek:

28 In

both CWSs studied, no storage space in the form of rolling containers or lockers or the like is provided for flex-desk users, which is why these coworkers are encouraged to bring their work materials with them every time they visit the CWS and take them with them again when they leave. In Tabit, there is a need for more storage options, especially for the start-ups in the Classic Office.

300

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

“So that is a photo of my work station. Ehm (1) it’s rather minimalist. (1) It’s like coffee, (1) laptop, notebook, bag. (2) On a bench. (1) And OUTside. (3) Yeah, (2) ehm this could be anywhere in the world. (I: Mhm.) And I can carry all that with me, apart from my coffee cup. (Both laugh) but I can find a new one. (Both laugh). Ehm (1) yeah. Ehm (2) yeah, ehm (1) my laptop is very LIGHT, I always carry a notebook with me in that same bag. (1) And, (1) yeah, so it’s, it’s a nice, it’s a nice ehm, it was nice to take that photo to, to, (2) ehm to think about, (1) yeah, (I: Yeah.) wha/ hm the items that I (1) NEED to do my work, and really that’s it.” (interview Samantha, para. 73) (Figure 10.13, left photo) “Yes, exactly, everything that is needed nowadays to work. (3) NOTEbook. (2) Glass of WATER and COFFEE. Now YOGURT. (Both laugh.) (3) Ehm (7) YES, so maybe that was unthinkable before, that you need so little. (3) I think that’s still kind of COOL. (I: Mhm.) That’s why coworking spaces work at all, because you just (1) ALWAYS have your office with you.” (interview Tarek, para. 127)

A typical narrative about one’s own workplace and the artefacts involved, which repeatedly emerges in the interviews, as in the examples above, fits the reduced workplaces. Thus, following the discourses on the paperless office and the digital nomadism, the minimally furnished place and the associated mobile office, which fits into a bag and does without paper, are positively highlighted. Associated with this are positive attributes, such as freedom, flexibility and mobility in relation to the placement when working. This narrative also becomes tangible in everyday coworking life, as I reflect during a stay at the Tabit Classic Office: “Funny, by the way, are also the books that were pushed under the [external] screens [note AB: in the Classic Office]: all IT books. […] It gives me the impression that the printed books are no longer up to date and are not even read. They are only useful as a heightening for the external screens. Which can be corroborated by the small talk at the lunch table yesterday: There the conversation also revolved around antiquated devices like fax and printer [with the original sound]: You don’t use that anymore, you do everything on the computer. […] Instead, they made fun of it: ‘There was once a customer who sent screenshots by fax’. [or] ‘There was once someone who always printed out his programming scripts’. [The original sound:] The digital workers don’t do that anymore. They don’t need paper for their work.” (Field notes AP09, para. 3)

The excerpt addresses two “funny” situations in dealing with analog documents or books. First, the IT books in the Tabit Classic Office apparently no longer have any content-related use, except that they serve as a heightening for the external screens in their materiality. Second, it seems clear from the jokes at the lunch table that the conversion of the digital documents (screenshots, programming

10.2  Setting Up: Positioning at the Place and Involved Artifacts

301

scripts) into analog ones has no added value, as they represent artefacts of the virtual space. In both jokes, a humorous way of dealing with this topic is shown, in which the use of paper is exaggerated into the absurd. This attitude seems to be based on the principle of working—especially in the IT sector—as paperless as possible as a coworker. Thus, complementary to the positive evaluation of the paperless office, a negative evaluation of the (senseless) use of paper takes place, which does not seem to be up to date in the digital age. This demarcation is also addressed in the following quote by Tabit coworker Tamara, who occupies her own team office with her start-up, which would actually not pose a problem for using and storing paper: “Compared to OTHERS, uh, or especially to my colleagues, I’m still the one who needs most PaPER. (I: Mhm.) Uh, so not waSTEFUL, but I like to make notes, uh, totally retro old-fashioned is Post-its, for example. And you can see that too [note AB: on the workplace photo (see Fig. 10.14)]: I always have some Post-it on the PC. We actually/ We actually work with tools where you can write exactly what we can do, what I did, but that sometimes takes too LONG and the Post-it is somehow FASTER written and psychologically, when you cross it off/ THROUGH it, it somehow also feels GOOD.” (interview Tamara, para. 38)

In this interview excerpt, Tamara distances herself from other coworkers and especially her (male) colleagues, for whom it seems to be self-evident to do their work exclusively digitally. Tamara, on the other hand, makes it clear that she cannot completely do without paper, although she also emphasizes that she does not waste it and thus refers to the corresponding normative attitude. In doing so, Tamara judges her use of Post-its for notes as “totally retro old-fashioned” and emphasizes through the tautology “retro old-fashioned”29 and the intensifying adjective “totally”, that she is well aware of the discourse about the paperless office and the associated norms. At the same time, the word construct creates a wink in its overemphasizing evaluation. Although digital tools are used in the work team to capture and process tasks, Tamara subverts this practice and uses Post-its instead. She does this not least because they are faster to handle for her in terms of more efficient work compared to the more cumbersome digital solutions for her, but also because she associates a good feeling with crossing them out, which positively co-determines her work atmosphere. As this example of

29 Both

adjectives of the tautology refer to a past-orientedness. While “old-fashioned” is negatively connoted, the adjective “retro” carries a positive connotation, which, besides vintage, is also an important keyword in relation to spatial design.

302

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

Tamara shows, the use of paper is problematized even among users of fixed workstations. This shows that this normative attitude, which regards the use of paper as outdated and the paperless office as an ideal in this respect, seems to be deeply rooted in the consciousness of the coworkers. As already pointed out, even the fixed desks appear comparatively impersonal, although their owners would have the opportunity to personalize them. Thus, even at the fixed workstations, typically only things are positioned that are work-related or serve the reproduction of labor power. Tabit coworker Tristan is an exception insofar as he is the only one in the sample to highlight a special artifact in the interview that is positioned on his fixed workstation and only indirectly linked to his work. The miniature edition of a designer chair, which is positioned in front of the middle of his three external screens, was photographed by him in close-up (see Fig. 10.15). To him, this chair represents a “TOTEM” or “fetish” in his everyday work, as he explains in the interview: “This is the little JOY (Breathes audibly.) at my workplace, is, that I have this beautiful object uh (Clicks.) here uh there. This is a/ a miniature of a chair, which is called Pretzel Chair. (1) Designed by George Nelson, if I’m not mistaken. It’s a lim-

Fig. 10.15   Miniature designer chair at Tristan’s workstation. (Photo: Tristan)

10.2  Setting Up: Positioning at the Place and Involved Artifacts

303

ited EDition. So the/ the original, from Vitra there was the/ so it was made. It’s one of my/ One of my FAVORITE chairs. (2) Uh yes. And it lies/ it stands THERE, it’s a gift. And it just stands THERE and that’s like, (1) uh co/ can I always get some good feelings, because it’s just, (2) yes, one, the/ something, that is beautiful. And I am (1) interested in DESIGN, and that’s like so, (I: Mhm. Mhm.) like so a kind of TOTEM or (1) fetish or no idea, how to call it.” (interview Tristan, para. 14)

Although the artifact is not directly involved as an actor in the work process, it contributes to a positive work atmosphere, which Tristan actively shapes through its positioning. In the following, the technical objects that are important for the constitution of the personal work space will be discussed again.

10.2.2 Technical Artifacts and Their Role in the Constitution of the Workplace: Laptop and Headphones As already pointed out in the previous explanations, the laptop, but also the headphones are significant social goods in relation to the constitution of the personal work space and at the same time involved in the doing being busy practices (cf. Bender 2013), which is why they are given a closer look in the following. The coworkers interviewed pursue a very specific form of work—with a central work instrument—namely: digital work on the laptop30. Thus, the notebook is part of all photographed user workstations31. The artifact has various properties that make it so significant. First, it enables digital work in virtual space, second, it enables mobile location-independent work and thus also the visiting of places that feel right for the laptop workers (cf. Liegl 2014). Third, the central importance of

30 Although,

as already explained, analog activities are also pursued in the CWS. For example, the Sargas coworkers Sheldon and Sabine, who work in the fields of illustration and graphic design, also draw with paper and pencil in the CWS. 31 This is not surprising, since the CWSs examined are primarily spaces for laptop workers. In the case of Sargas, however, community manager Samuel also cites cook Silas as an example that not all coworkers are laptop workers. Silas is the only exception and a special case in that he is in a contractual relationship with Sargas and therefore cannot be regarded as an independent coworker. Other CWSs, however, offer professional kitchens as part of the CWS, which explicitly appeal to cooks as coworkers. In addition, there are CWSs with attached maker spaces or workshops or studios, where work is also done without a laptop.

304

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

the laptop is based on its multifunctionality, as Tabit coworker Till makes clear in the interview: “Then actually my laptop, that’s everything, what I br/ I have everything, what I need, on my LAPTOP. So that’s meanwhile also in such a company, like WE are now, is/ do you have (1) laptop, that’s it. Well, I sometimes also have an IPAD, because we also make iPad-APP and so. But I have, I haven’t needed any, any scrap of paper anymore for, (1) for YEARS. That’s the THING, everything is on it and that’s everything, a communica/ from the communication tool to the, (1) to the WORK tool, to the don’t know what.” (interview Till, para. 43)

Everything Till needs to work is on this device in virtual space. Following the discourse on the paperless office, he exaggerates that he hasn’t “needed any, any scrap of paper anymore for, (1) for YEARS” and sums it up: “Laptop, that’s it.”—that’s all he needs. With this idealizing and catchy statement, Till expresses a feeling of freedom and flexibility that is also central to the discourse on digital nomadism. On the laptop, not only work-related activities can be carried out, but also activities of non-work, whereby the boundaries between work and leisure activities are fluid. Since the actual activity on the laptop is difficult or not visible for outsiders and practices of doing being busy present the activity to the outside as work, there is a risk of distraction and drifting into activities of non-work. Nevertheless, this was not explicitly addressed in the interviews. If the laptop is “everything”, the boundaries of work and non-work also blur in another respect, as becomes clear from the description of Tabit coworker Tamara: “We [note AB: her start-up] only need a PC or respectively, if I have an internet connection, then I can work ANYWHERE. Um (1) BUT for me it is a d/ even if I work nonstop also on weekends, I am ALWAYS reachable, I ALWAYS check my mails (1) um, I come/ You know, we are active on social media and there you can’t just say at five: ‘Have a nice [evening] guys, we are CLOSED now and no one will answer anything anymore.’ You HAVE to be somehow PRESENT on all channels, almost twenty-four seven (I: Mhm.) But I don’t mind that, but for ME it is still a, a, a SEPARATION. So when I’m THERE [note AB: at Tabit], it’s WORKING for me and at HOME it’s like a voluntary work for me. (I: Mhm.) But, that’s still important to me, a little bit of the spatial separation.” (interview Tamara_2, para. 3)

This leads to a temporal-spatial blurring, although for Tamara the spatial separation of the places of work and non-work is still important. The blurring is countered by new spatial boundaries, by constructing Tabit as a place of “WORKING” outside of privacy (cf. Petendra 2015, p. 240). The mobility that the laptop pro-

10.2  Setting Up: Positioning at the Place and Involved Artifacts

305

vides to the digital workers also entails the fact that work can be done anytime and anywhere: at home and on weekends. For Tamara, weekend work is a matter of course. She admits to working “nonstop” and being “ALWAYS reachable” and checking her emails. Behind this is a work attitude that expresses a normative subjectification of work. Although Tamara considers the work at home as a selfchosen “voluntary work”, the quote also shows that social media force her to be reachable on weekends and answer customer questions. This also leads to blurring of work and non-work in the virtual space. Formerly private-oriented social media are no longer just private in nature, but are also used by companies to reach (potential) customers. In relation to the social network Facebook, for example, an extension of the concept of friendship can be observed, which includes not only friends but also loose acquaintances and not only private contacts but also professional contacts. Thus, coworker Simon also states in a conversation, “that he already receives many orders via Facebook and that business and private matters mix on his account. He is now thinking about opening a business account on Facebook” (field notes BP12, para. 4). This example shows that active boundaries are also necessary in the virtual space. Moreover, the laptops also have a symbolic impact in their external appearance. They vary according to model, color, size, design etc., whereby especially in the case of Sargas one type is dominant: MacBook. This has a comparatively high staging value and is an expression of belonging to the Creative Class (cf. Prinz 2012), although this effect fades with the increasing transformation into a mass product. Personalization also often takes place through stickers, which are typically arranged on the lid of the laptop. While some laptops have single stickers, others have stickers lined up next to and on top of each other. The stickers on the notebooks also give some clues about the milieu affiliation, political attitude or hobbies of their owners. Furthermore, they also serve as advertising space for their own or affiliated company or organization/s. Thus, the laptop is more than a tool. Through the choice of the model and its personalization, the owners symbolically differentiate themselves and reinforce its function as an affect generator (cf. Reckwitz 2016, p. 175). Headphones are also important for some users in relation to the constitution of their own workspaces (cf. Sect. 10.1.3). As Bender (2013) has also shown in her study on mobile workplaces based on the analysis of the practices of a digital worker in a café (cf. ibid., p. 127 ff.), headphones have different functions in relation to supporting work. In the CWSs examined, they are used both in the spaces for concentrated mental work and in the spaces for interaction. By listening to an individual soundscape, an own inner space is constituted and an individual work atmosphere is created (cf. Bender 2013; Petendra 2015). Ambient noises (such as

306

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

music or conversations in the interactive spaces or eating or keyboard noises in the spaces for concentrated mental work) can be partially or completely blocked out, allowing the coworker to focus on their own work. Thus, Tabit user Tarek creates his own space in the lively Creative Space with the help of the headphones, where he is by himself, as he emphasizes: “The CREATIVE Space is already more, a bit more LIVELY, but I’m actually, I listen, listen mostly to music, or. (I: Mhm.) I’m actually by MYSELF there. But (1) you see what’s GOING on, or. And what’s happening and (1) I can then, if I/ if I NOTICE somehow, that arouses my attention or something, I can then (1) turn away from my work. Or if someone COMES, whom I want to greet, I can do that. But otherwise I’m still by myself. That’s why I think I like it here downstairs.” (interview Tarek, para. 138)

As this interview excerpt expresses, not all senses are exclusively focused on working for oneself. Thus, Tarek visually participates in the events in the Creative Space and can also “turn away from [his] work” when something or someone catches his attention. This way, he can experience the lively atmosphere at least visually and at the same time acoustically remove himself from the space by using headphones, creating his own personal work space with his own sound atmosphere, in which he can pursue his concentrated mental work. Tabit coworker Tristan, on the other hand, often feels distracted in the Classic Office, which threatens his work performance and can only be partially compensated by using headphones: “SURE, there’s the headphones, to isolate yourself, but suppose I want to write something, then music is not uh (1) the be/ the best background. Then I actually just want to have PEACE AND QUIET. (1) And then there are simply HERE retreat possibilities like this room here for example, in which we are right now [note AB: one of the Tabit meeting rooms], but if it’s occupied, and if there’s no more this room, (1) then I’m just screwed, then I’m just/ can’t work and perform as much as I’d like, because I’m constantly distracted. I HA/ (1) I belong to, I think, the people who just need peace and quiet, to concentrate. (I: Mhm.) ESPECIALLY, when it comes to MENTAL work. If I just have to photoshop something or/ I do a lot of creative work, (1) that goes with techno GREAT, with that I have such a BEAT and I can work fast to it. (I: Mhm.) But if I have to write a long text or a complicated email or clarify something legal, (1) I need peace and quiet for that.” (interview Tristan, para. 9)

The isolation by headphones and the use of music are a necessary strategy for Tristan to escape the ambient noise in the Classic Office and to constitute his own inner work spaces and sound atmospheres. He points out, however, that this strat-

10.2  Setting Up: Positioning at the Place and Involved Artifacts

307

egy is not equally suitable for every work activity. While working with Photoshop or creative work in general works “GREAT” for him with techno music, any kind of noise is disturbing for Tristan for concentrated mental work, such as writing long texts or complicated emails. For this, quietness is necessary in relation to the constitution of a suitable work atmosphere, so that Tristan can be productive. In this respect, physical-material retreat spaces such as the meeting room are important for him, but they are not always available (see Sect. 10.1.3). In the case of spaces for concentrated mental work, headphones can also serve to create a noise level for working in the first place. Depending on the work content, headphones are also direct work equipment that is necessary for performing the work, as is the case when editing videos. Moreover, they are also communication tools in the context of interactive work, when they are used as headsets for phone calls or video conferences and enable the constitution of the virtual communication space. Conversely, headphones make sure the co-present others are not disturbed by the noise level of the virtual space (cf. Bender 2013, p. 128 f.). In addition, headphones are often involved in doing being busy practices and have a symbolic effect in this respect: If a person wears headphones, this signals to the co-present others that the person concerned is busy and does not want to be addressed, thereby creating privacy (cf. Kratzer 2017, p. 26). The type of headphones (in-ear, on-ear, over-ear, with/without noise cancelling, etc.) is also significant not only in terms of the strength of the exclusion of ambient noise, but also has different signal character for the counterpart in terms of approachability. This is also discussed in the coworking discourse, as Fig. 10.16 shows by displaying three people working on a laptop or more precisely on a MacBook, who differ in terms of the use of headphones. While the female person on the left signals willingness to talk through doing being open (without headphones, waving hand), the female person on the right makes herself unapproachable through doing being busy (over-ear headphones, closed eyes, typing hands on the keyboard). The male person in the middle, on the other hand, signals limited approachability for a short conversation with only one in-ear headphone in his left ear. Headphones are also important when it comes to communicating with team members in the virtual (work) space. This and the importance of the analog space in the context of team work will be discussed in more detail in the following excursus.

308

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

Fig. 10.16   Headphone rules. (Reused from The Creative Space 2012 by Jess Clarke with kind permission of Rhubarb Media)32

10.2.3 Excursus: The Importance of the Analog-Material Space in the Context of Team Work In view of the references made in the interviews to the paperless office, which makes decentralized and location-independent work possible, it could be assumed that the physical-material space of CWSs is less relevant for working together in the context of team work. That this is not the case will be shown in the following. As became clear from the previous explanations, physical-material and virtual spaces overlap for the laptop workers in everyday CWS life (cf. Bender 2013; Edinger and Reimer 2015): Although the bodies of the coworkers are placed in the material space at a physical location and the users feel this in their bodily presence, the laptops open up access to further virtual (work) spaces, where they work focused for themselves as well as interactively and also pursue other activities. By working in the virtual space, the physical co-presence of colleagues at one location is not mandatory. Decentralized work is supported by virtual com-

32 The

illustration was inspired by a video from Blankspaces (2009).

10.2  Setting Up: Positioning at the Place and Involved Artifacts

309

munication spaces, as Timo, an employee of the Tabit operator company Thuban, explains in the interview: “[E]specially because we work a lot through communication, through online media, uh I actually have permanent contact with my other employees. (1) And (1) that, that promotes it very much, that I uh when I work at home, I, I’m not ALONE and, and nobody knows what I’m doing, but I’m PERMANENTLY in contact with other developers who work on the same product and I can even exchange, ask questions, THEY can ask questions uh uh and thereby the, the place where I work, is not so relevant.” (interview Timo, para. 119)

As the existence of CWSs shows, however, the physical-material workplace becomes anything but meaningless in the context of mobile-flexible digital work (cf. Petendra 2015). The importance of the space of bodily presence and the feeling of interpersonal atmospheres (cf. Böhme 2013b) in connection with team or decentralized work is repeatedly addressed in the interviews and here especially by the Tabit users, who work in the ICT sector and in a team. This is also the case for Tabit coworker Till, who as part of the management team and the only employee of a globally operating start-up works decentralized in Tarfstadt.33 He communicates mainly virtually via the messaging service Skype in the context of his work, which entails challenges compared to on-site communication, as “CONTEXT information” (interview Till, para. 25) is missing, which requires increased communication and documentation of the communication (cf. on this and the following explanations of the section Bernhardt 2022): “There the communication has to be BETTER, much more proactive” (ibid.). For Till, the video function is also important in this respect, in order to see not only verbal communication, but also the non-verbal reactions of the counterpart and thus “feel a little bit” (cf. para. 30). He also attaches importance to regular personal meetings and joint workshops in physical co-presence. Face-to-face communication has the advantage that all senses are involved, which is also addressed by Tabit user and start-up founder Toni, whose team consists of two other employees who also work in Tabit:

33 That

Till shows permanent presence in the virtual space becomes clear from the fact that he also has his laptop with him during the interview to check his emails. Thus, during the interview he checks at “approx. quarter-hourly interval, whether something new has come in” (notes on the interview Till).

310

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

“What we notice is, WELL, you have all these modern forms of communication, and that’s nice and good. (1) Only, these are, (1) these ARE different levels, how well you can communicate effectively. And it makes a HUGE difference, whether I can TURN around, or not even turn around, but just look over, talk to someone or walk over, (1) OR whether we have to make a Skype conference call now, which is IMMEDIATELY more formal. (I: Mhm.) Uh (1) It gets EVEN more difficult, if you can’t make a conference call, but a CHAT. (1) Chat, email etc. The PROBLEM is simply, the communication becomes, becomes more complex. More difficult, uh you DON’T get everything. (1) You CAN’T really convey everything so exactly uh in the short time.” (interview Toni, para. 22)

In the user interviews, it becomes apparent again and again that communication in co-presence on site is preferred over virtual exchange (cf. Jakonen et al. 2017). As Toni also addresses in the interview excerpt, face-to-face communication in the work context is experienced as more uncomplicated and spontaneous than when it takes place mediated via video conference, chat or email. This advantage of direct personal communication is also emphasized by those Tabit coworkers who work as customers with the operator company Thuban and are in close contact with them.

10.2.4 Intermediate Conclusion: Setting Up In this chapter, the workplaces of the coworkers and the associated artefacts were examined more closely. It became clear that the flexibility inherent in the coworking concept and the corresponding rules, such as desk sharing and clean desk policy, typically find their expression in the constitution of the personal (flex desk) workspaces. The non-human actors involved in the spacing are often limited to comparatively few things (from the field of work or reproduction of labor power), which makes such workplaces usually look reduced and impersonal. In particular, the laptop is a central object of the paperless office and the coworker workplace, insofar as it is multifunctional, enables digital-mobile work and thus opens up the constitution of further (virtual) spaces. This also promotes the temporal-spatial blurring of work, as one can “work anywhere and anytime” with it, insofar as the virtual space is accessible regardless of location. In addition to positive effects, such as an improvement of work-life balance, this also entails negative consequences, such as stress due to extended work-related availability (cf. Papsdorf 2019, p. 125 ff.). Headphones are important instruments for creating inner spaces and sound atmospheres. Both technical artefacts are also involved in doing being busy.

10.3  Dealing with the Search for Flexible Workplaces

311

As shown, the workplace photos and the corresponding interview sequences refer to a body-close and body-centered synthesis of the personal workspace, as they are also characteristic for the flexible office in general (cf. Petendra 2015). In the interviews, the minimalist and mobile workplaces are often positively connoted. This is associated with a positive attitude towards the paperless office and the emphasis on flexibility and mobility in relation to the possibilities of one’s own placement. This goes along with a distancing from conventional office work: workers who depend on paper and analog documents, it seems, have a difficult stand in CWSs.34 It becomes apparent that not only the spatial structures and the associated rules create the reduced and mobile workplace as the standard configuration for flex-desk users, but these also find expression in the attitudes of the users towards such a workplace. In other words: The majority of the interviewed flex-desk users do not feel a restriction to have a reduced workplace, but their workspace understanding mostly fits that of the CWS. This does not mean, however, that all users cope equally well with the flex-desk principle. For example, in the interviews, more storage space is also occasionally desired (especially by members of the Tabit start-ups with flex-desk workplaces). In the following chapter, the attitudes and practices of flex-desk users will also be discussed in more detail and it will also be shown that there are nevertheless practices of occupying that contradict the rules of the flex-desk membership.

10.3 Dealing with the Search for Flexible Workplaces The following explanations focus on the flex-desk users. Once positioned in the open space, among the flex-desk users there are coworkers who prefer to keep their place over the day or a longer period of time. Other users, on the other hand, change their workplaces in and outside the CWS during the day. This is shown by Scott and Sophie, who have different preferences in this regard: “Sophie: So what/ for, in my CASE for example I, I’m a person who really likes to/ (1) I would LOVE to have my own desk, because I really like to (1) FEEL that things are MINE. (I: Mhm.) I don’t know, and they have like my (1) print.

34 As Tabit operator Tabea and co-owner of a graphic design office explains in the interview, there are also analog workplaces with office materials in the ICT CWS Tabit, such as her “advertising corner”, where she emphasizes that even those flex-desk users with a laptop-focused workplace and without the need for a storage space sometimes appreciate being able to access office materials (cf. interview Tabea, para. 66).

312

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

Scott: Your personal touch. Sophie: Yeah, my personal TOUCH, and my/ because I have, I have a really specific way to collate THINGS and, and con/ and build my own spaces. So (1) I like, whenEVER I move to a place and I think, okay that’s my, that’s my TABLE, I like that it is/ I prefer if it’s for the rest of the day. So I don’t LIKE to move because I’m/ (1) I’m like, I don’t know, I don’t think a position there. (I: Mhm.) But Scott really likes to/ doesn’t/ (Scott: Mhm.) don’t, don’t take care about it. Doesn’t take care about it, so he really likes to MOVE. I: To move. Scott: Yeah, I actually like, like (Sophie: Yeah.) moving, CHANGING my //setting.// Sophie: //You feel tired// when you are more //than three hours in one place.// Scott: //Yeah. Yeah, so for example like// one, one example is this morning, I/ this morning I/ This is more extreme. But this morning I woke UP and I wo/ I woke up early and I was working at HOME. And I was like, I was just wanted to work until she woke up. But it was like, ‘Ah I’m good,’ so I ended up working from home until like ELEVEN. And then eh (1) I went to a café and I, I worked eh from a café like for, I don’t know, two hours or something. And then I went running and came here. (Laughing both) Eh and now I’m gonna work here for a couple, for three hours more.” (interview Scott_Sophie, paras. 280 ff.)

Sophie presents herself as a person who values the personalization of her workplace, even though she does not have a fixed workplace. So she tries to occupy her table at least for the duration of the day by placing her things as her territory. On the other hand, her partner Scott belongs to those coworkers who prefer to switch between different work settings, which he illustrates by the example of the current day.35 For other coworkers, the positioning behavior changes over a longer period of time, as Sargas user Sabine, who mainly works in the Vibrant Floor at the time of the interview, explains: “I have phases, where I always sit in the SAME place, and then I change it also. (laughs) (I: Mhm.) So somehow, I don’t know, why. But (2) for a few days in a row I often sit in the same place. […] And but I, when I was upstairs [note AB: Silent Floor] or ALSO in the café I also (laughing) always sat on the same chair for a while. (I: Mhm.) Um (1) but then I also find it cool, if, if NOT ALWAYS, so if you can also sit somewhere ELSE. (1) And I mean, sometimes it’s so full anyway, (1) um that then/ uh that I take the place where I still fit in so to speak. (I: Mhm.) (2) Yes, and I 35 At

Sargas itself, Scott has only used the different work settings to a limited extent in a week of membership and has mainly placed himself in the Silent Floor for his everyday work of programming. However, the use in the week was also limited due to an external event, so that a routine after such a short membership is hard to discern anyway.

10.3  Dealing with the Search for Flexible Workplaces

313

find that nice. I MEAN, I find, yes, it also is something special, to have a fixed place, because you can somehow set up yourself. On the other hand: nice change too, so (laughs).” (interview Sabine, paras. 59 ff.)

Here Sabine sums up the advantages she sees in relation to a fixed place (being able to set up) and those advantages of a flexible workplace (“Nice change too”). Accordingly, her placement behavior varies according to her own needs or due to external requirements, when the open space is “full”. In the following, two different attitudes towards the flex-desk membership are shown and three practices observable in everyday CWS life are worked out, which in turn undermine the flex-desk concept.

10.3.1 Own Attitude Towards the Flex-Desk Concept As can be seen from the interview excerpt above by Scott and Sophie, two different positions can be found among the flex-desk users: The majority are those users who identify with the flex-desk concept and who emphasize the advantages of the flexible, temporary workplaces and the mobile office (see previous chapter). They appreciate the diversity of different work settings and places and the associated freedom to switch between them. In this respect, they can cope well with the fact of constituting their temporary workplace anew every day or see this as an advantage.36 For example, Tabit coworker Timo, who uses his photos to highlight the variety of places in Tabit and the associated positioning possibilities, says: “I don’t have a really FIXED workplace. So that’s what I appreciate very much about Tabit. (I: Mhm.) That I can/ I have a TABLE, but I can also go to the SOFA, or I have a standing option. And, and I can CHANGE. And I don’t change very OFTEN, but I appreciate the possibility that I can, if I feel like I want to CHANGE. Or if I have to talk to you about something, I can quickly take the meeting room or I can go outside to work if it’s nice. (I: Mhm.) Well, I can choose for myself where I work. (I: Mhm.) Even though I don’t have an office there. In the office I don’t have to sit at the same place all the time, but I can change it depending on the circumstances.” (interview Timo, para. 26)

36 Liegl (2014, p. 178) also notes: “The flexdesk is cheaper [than a fixdesk], but a preference for it might not always be driven by price alone. It allows the flexibility to feel out the space (every day) before choosing a location.”

314

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

Similarly, Sargas coworker Simon evaluates it positively to have a flexible workplace and also emphasizes this with his photo series, in which he photographed “different WORK situations”: “Well, the first two [photos] are just two different (1) WORK situations. (1) What (1) simply represents this flex-desk uh (clicks tongue) principle. (I: Mhm.) That means, I can (1) sit down anywhere at any time, where there is space. (I: Mhm.) Which is quite nice. […] When I’m in the Silent Floor, then (1) I often sit at the same place. (I: Mhm.) (1) And when it’s occupied, like today for example, then I sit down at another one. (1) This change I also find (1) somehow BENEFICIAL. (I: Mhm.) Yes. Maybe I had a SHIT project at one desk (1) or had a mental block, then I just sit down at another one and then it suddenly works.” (interview Simon, paras. 32 ff.)

Like Timo, Simon also emphasizes the freedom that comes with the flexible workplaces, to be able to “sit down anywhere at any time, where there is space.” Although he often positions himself at the same place on the Silent Floor (mainly, as he says elsewhere, because it has an external screen), he does not perceive it negatively, but rather as a beneficial “change” to position himself at another place if his preferred one is occupied. He also adds that one’s own placement and the change of it can also affect one’s own mood and thus productivity. If a table is emotionally negatively charged, because Simon had a “SHIT project” or a “mental block” there, a change of position helps him to restore a working atmosphere in which he can be productive. The possibility of positioning oneself at different places (associated with different work settings and atmospheres) means a change for some coworking users, as it is also experienced when switching from the conventional to the flexible office in companies (cf. Petendra 2015). This is made clear by Tabit coworker Tanja, who has been at Tabit for less than a month due to her employment with the operator company Thuban and has not dealt with coworking before: “Such a Tabit is then also a matter of ATTITUDE. We/ If, if you are used to it before, that you somehow, I don’t know, sit in the office from eight to six, or something, at your PLACE and so, then you have to arrange yourself first, that you also have the freedoms and back and forth and there, where also/ where you just want, so/ Or I am maybe such a creature of habit, I don’t know.” (interview Tanja, para. 80)

Using these freedoms of the flexible workplace is thus a learning process. There are also some users with flexible membership who would prefer a fixed workplace, as Sophie clearly expresses it above (“I would LOVE to have my own desk, because I really like to (1) FEEL that things are MINE.” (Sophie, inter-

10.3  Dealing with the Search for Flexible Workplaces

315

view Scott_Sophie, para. 280))—but who refrain from it, for example, because of the higher costs37 or because there are no fixed workplaces (anymore) in their preferred open space. Although these coworking users usually cope with the flex-desk membership, especially in this group, various strategies are applied to occupy preferred places as territories and to possibly expand or retain them over a longer period of time.

10.3.2 Practices of Territory Formation Opposed to the Flex-Desk Concept Following Petendra (2015), who has identified various tactics and strategies in the process of settling in her study on the flexible office (see Sect. 4.1), three practices can be found in the CWSs studied that flex-desk users pursue to occupy their preferred workplaces: arriving early, occupying permanently, and spreading out. Unlike in the corporate context, however, the length of membership is less important when it comes to the informal occupancy order in the CWS, as is the case in the study by Petendra (2015). First of all, arriving early at the CWS increases the chance of getting the same preferred spot again and again, according to the principle of “first come, first served” (cf. Petendra 2015, pp. 182, 197)38. This is how Sargas coworker Serge describes his preferred workstation on the Silent Floor (see Fig. 10.17): “Usually I always had a fixed ahm/ No, sorry a flexible desk, which is fixed, because basically I’m one of the first people entering at Sargas in the morning. So it’s always ME and maybe another guy. And like/ And so basically I can PICK eh the desk I, I want. And so basically it’s not/ FORMALLY it’s like a flexible desk, but practically it’s like eh I can PICK it every day.” (interview Serge, para. 46)

The slip of the tongue at the beginning of the statement emphasizes that the flexible desk that Serge has is basically a fixed workstation for him. As one of the

37 This

points to the fact that the decision to work in a CWS is not only associated with freedoms, but also with constraints in the context of precarious work. Thus, the cheap workplace alone and the lack of alternatives can also lead to working in the CWS and to rather cope with the flex-desk concept than to identify with it. 38 Following Petendra’s Practice of Early Arrival, which is used in the flexible office to defend territorial possession and as a tactic in case of density (Petendra 2015, p. 198).

316

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

Fig. 10.17   Photo of Serge’s workstation on the Sargas Silent Floor. (Photo: Serge)

first to arrive at Sargas in the morning, he has the advantage of being able to sit at the desk of his choice. Thus, Serge himself notes that—although the membership is formally one for a flexible spot—he can choose the preferred spot as his workstation every day because of his early arrival. Secondly, contrary to the clean-desk policy, flex desks are personalized by permanently occupying39 a table beyond the duration of the temporary use by means of positioning social goods that unfold their symbolic effect as a marker of an occupied territory. The secondary territory is thus marked as a primary territory. This creates the impression that the personalized place, despite its marking as a flex desk, is a fixed workplace, which prevents other coworkers from placing themselves at the relevant table. The permanent occupation only occurs in open spaces, where there are both fixed and flexible places (in the examined CWSs, these are the spaces for concentrated mental work). Moreover, this strategy is conditional: The concerned coworkers typically work comparatively regularly in the CWS40 for a longer period of time and/or have a personal relationship with

39 Cf.

on this Practice of Setting up by Petendra (2015), which aims at a permanent claim of places beyond the temporary placement (Petendra 2015, p. 193) and also applies in case of density. 40 In Petendra’s study, these are the “old-timers” who pursue the practice of setting up (Petendra 2015, p. 210).

10.3  Dealing with the Search for Flexible Workplaces

317

gatekeepers from the operating team or are themselves members of the operating team. This puts them in the situation that the personalization of flex desks, which is formally prohibited in accordance with the clean-desk policy, is nevertheless tolerated. Tabit coworker Thomas, who has been in the CWS for seven months at the time of the interview, provides an example for this. Despite flex-desk membership, he occupies a certain flexible window workplace in the Classic Office as his territory by means of the permanent positioning of personal things, as if it was a fixed workplace (see Fig. 10.18). Thus, personal (and comparatively old-fashioned looking) technical work tools in the form of a keyboard and over-ear headphones are permanently positioned on the desk, even when Thomas is not present in Tabit (see field notes AP03). In addition, things from the non-work domain, such as a filled cloth bag, tissue packs, two transparent plastic boxes filled with utensils, a bag of apples, beverage cans or sneakers, are deposited on or under the window sill next to his preferred workplace (see ibid. as well as his workplace photo). The positioned things on and next to the table mark it as an occupied primary territory and indicate that their owner keeps coming back to this place. Despite this symbolic function, the things also point to a mobile workplace: The food can be consumed, boxes and bags are quickly packed. In the interview, Thomas comments on the photo of his workplace following the logic of the flex desks or as he calls it “free seating[s]”:

Fig. 10.18   Photo of Thomas’ workplace in the Tabit Classic Office. (Photo: Thomas)

318

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

“This is now my WORKplace. It is eh basically here like, that there, that there is free seating. That means, I come (1) and then I look, where is a FREE workplace today? (1) And you can also rent a fixed place for an extra charge, I don’t have that. That means, in that sense, MY place is somewhere else every day. But most often at this spot. (1) (I: Mhm.) Also sometimes where you sit today, for example, that depends. SOMETIMES everything is full upstairs, then I’m downstairs anyway. (I: Mhm, mhm.) I didn’t have that so often.” (interview Thomas, para. 124)

Only when asked does he tell me about the things he brought with him: “I: Um what is noticeable, that um/ I assume, this is also YOURS, right? Thomas: Exactly. I have a certain tendency, then I’m a bit atypical (1) for today’s world, I have such a keyboard and he/ and headphones and a mouse and, and such stuff, a big screen next to it. I: So you brought all that, that is/ Thomas: The screen was HERE. I: Ah the screen was //here. Mhm.// Thomas: But keyboard and mouse I brought with me. And uh then I have these, the sports stuff for RUNNING there and apples and, and such, that’s then under the TABLE or you can leave it there somehow, that’s also been okay so far. (I: Mhm.) And if I then sit somewhere else, then it all has to move. (1) That’s part of the (1) deal.” (interview Thomas, paras. 125 ff.)

Thomas argues in accordance with the rules and plays down the violation of the official rules in the interview. Following the logic of the flex desk, he emphasizes that “it all has to move”, should he have to sit somewhere else. However, during the period of the study, he sits exclusively at his preferred place in my presence.41 Thomas exceeds the limits of the organizational rules with a personalization of his preferred workplace that contradicts the cleandesk policy. This is not sanctioned, but tolerated by the operator team. That Thomas would prefer a permanent placement at a fixed place, he says clearly in the interview, but he would only conclude a membership for a fixed workplace if the costs for this were lower or he “got this place LESS OFTEN” (interview Thomas, para. 176). The appropriation of the workplace also relies on the practice of spreading out, although the personalization according to the clean desk policy only takes place temporarily here. The secondary territory is thus enlarged and thus 41 Also,

in the first days of my field stay, before the interview, I note during a handover of the table between Thomas and me: “He offers me to use the screen and ‘his keyboard’. The things [on the table] seem to belong to him” (Field notes AP03, para. 5).

10.3  Dealing with the Search for Flexible Workplaces

319

the ­personal space, which meets the need for privacy. This practice is applied to flexible tables that offer more than one potential workplace and that can therefore be used by several coworkers at the same time. It has already been shown in Sect. 8.2.2 that this is often intended for the tables of the spaces for interaction and that the rule applies to be able to sit down at an already occupied table without having to negotiate this beforehand. With spreading out, the table, and thus also the other potential workplaces, is marked as occupied territory by positioning personal items across the individual place on the table and/or placing them on adjacent chairs.42 The fact that not all users are equally open to sharing their occupied table with other coworkers is shown, for example, by the workplace of user Tanja (see Fig. 10.5, p. 270). The photo of her workplace in the Creative Space shows a wooden table with space for four people in the foreground. The photo shows the view into the room from the table, which seems to be important to her in her own positioning. On the table itself, a laptop is positioned in the middle of the front part, with the screen switched on. To the left of it there is also a thermal mug. Besides that, the table is empty, which is characteristic of a minimalist flex-desk workplace. Despite the few items, however, they are positioned on the tabletop in such a way that at least one side of the table is marked as Tanja’s sole territory. In the interview, Tanja tells about her workplace photo: “And that was my workplace on that day. (1) Uh (1) I still LIKE to, when I have to do something ALONE or something/ (1) uh (1) yes, like at that TABLE. I don’t know, that is, that is I think/ that would be I think actually a FOUR-PERSON table or something. Uh, yes, I still like to be there on the side to observe everything a little (laughs).” (interview Tanja, para. 35)

She positions herself at the pictured place when she works alone and not together with her team members (see Sect. 10.1.1), which I also observe during my field visits. She emphasizes that it is “actually” a “FOUR-PERSON table”. Her word choice and the use of the subjunctive make it clear that this is an assumption and not a fact. This indicates that the table has not been fully occupied in her presence. Nevertheless, it becomes clear from the statement that she is well aware that she is extending her territory to the entire four-person table. In my field notes, I also write about this table as Tanja’s table, as I often perceive her as the sole user

42 This

phenomenon can be experienced again and again in everyday life when using buses or trains as public transport. For example, in trains, buses, etc. that are not very or moderately full, it is common to mark the neighboring seat as occupied by positioning a backpack, bag, jacket, etc. in order to gain more privacy.

320

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

of the table. In this respect, the constant use of a place also has the function of marking a territory vis-à-vis other people who are regularly present and who register the presence at the place.43 In this chapter, it was shown that there are also flex-desk users who would prefer a fixed workplace over the flex desk, but who arrange themselves with the flex-desk concept and partly undermine it in order to occupy the workplaces they prefer. By arriving early, occupying and spreading out permanently, or as in the case of Tanja, also using a certain place constantly, coworkers with flex-desk membership manage to position themselves at preferred workplaces and mark them as their territory. In doing so, they weaken the rules that apply to flex-desk membership within the scope of their interpretability to a greater or lesser extent. Conflicts regarding the negotiation of the legitimacy of unlawfully occupied flexible workplaces could not be observed by me during my stays in CWSs and were also not described to me in the interviews.44 Subsequently, the findings of the overall chapter are now sharpened on three user types in order to conclude it once again.

10.4 User Types I: Situationally Changing Office Nomads, Conventional and Unconventional Office Workers From the previous explanations, it becomes clear that the search for and the setting up of suitable workplaces, and thus the constitution of one’s own personal workspaces and atmospheres, is a complex process that involves many decisions, especially for flex-desk users. Part of the complexity reduction in everyday work are the development of preferences for certain areas or places where suitable workspaces and atmospheres can be quickly constituted, as well as the formation of routines of setting up. In this regard, it becomes apparent for both CWSs that only a few of the interviewed flex-desk users really switch situationally between the different open spaces of the CWSs. The majority of coworkers have preferences for a certain open space. That there are different user groups is also per-

43 However,

occupying the table as a primary territory only works to a limited extent, insofar as people who are new or irregularly present do not necessarily have to recognize such a claim to ownership through regular presence. 44 Also in the corporate context, Petendra (2015, p. 210) notes for her study that in the flexible office, open confrontation regarding such tactics and strategies is usually also avoided.

10.4  User Types I: Situationally Changing Office Nomads …

321

ceived and reflected in the field by the interview partners, especially in the case of Tabit, as the statement of user Thorsten shows: “So it’s actually always the same people who work down there and it’s always a lot of the same people who work up there, I have the feeling. (1) (I: Mhm.) The ones who work up there have like type of, their, their fixed THING there, I have the feeling, a little bit their STUFF THERE, even though they are actually not fixed workplaces. (1) (I: Mhm.) But it is a little bit like that, that they have their stuff there PARTLY. And then down there are actually really the people who (1) yes, they are actually ALWAYS there, so (1) they are actually always the same groups, who are down there and who are up there.” (interview Thorsten, paras. 72 f.)

In this regard, the user types worked out below are not only types “per se”, but also types “on their own” (Kuckartz 2006, p. 4055). Analytically, three typical user groups can be identified (see Sect. 6.3.3), which at the same time summarize different aspects of the subjective development of one’s own personal spaces and atmospheres of work presented in the overall chapter. The user groups presented below represent typical standpoints. As became clear from the preceding sections, however, the attitudes in reality are quite multifaceted.45 The user types differ in terms of how they experience the open spaces as a suitable work environment and, related to that, the fit of the open spaces to their own work or work space understanding and a different placement behavior in the CWS.46 So there are first situationally changing office nomads, who have a postmodern understanding of work and work space and, along with that, tolerance towards or positive evaluation of the spatial mixing of work and non-work. Since they also appreciate the conventional work atmosphere, which is associated with the spatial focus on concentrated mental work, they switch situationally between

45 Moreover,

the attitudes and the associated spatial behavior are by no means static, but they can also change over a longer period of time (depending on changing inner states or external requirements, as the example of Sabine in Sect. 10.3 showed). 46 In relation to what are suitable work spaces and atmospheres, those elements that create the work setting and the atmosphere are also important again: On the one hand, the non-human space in its materiality and symbolism, which becomes particularly clear in the Tabit case study with the two contrastingly designed spatial arrangements, and on the other hand, the rules regarding the noise level and the interaction level and the behaviors allowed by them, which is especially evident in the Sargas case study. While in the Sargas interviews, the own activity and, related to that, the work settings and the communicative atmospheres are used to justify the placement behavior, it is more the atmosphere generated by the symbolic-material space in Tabit.

322

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

the different work settings and atmospheres. The second type is that of unconventional office workers, who also have a postmodern work (space) understanding and, in this respect, clearly prefer the spaces for interaction for everyday work. And thirdly, there are conventional office workers, who prefer to place themselves in the spaces for concentrated mental work for their everyday work.47 They have a conventional work (space) understanding and, in this respect, rely on the separation of the spaces and places of work and non-work. In the following, the user types are presented in detail.

10.4.1 Situationally Changing Office Nomads “I like the café, (1) cause it is larger space. (1) And the Silent Floor when [I] really need to concentrate. (I: Mhm.) And I really like the buzz of the café.” (interview Samantha, para. 75)

The situationally changing office nomads are characterized by the fact that they appreciate both the spaces for interaction and the spaces for concentrated mental work for working and change their placement in the CWS situationally in this respect. They stay in several open spaces to perform their everyday work, without any clear preference for a container space being recognizable. The dimensions shown in Sect. 10.1.1 are action-guiding for this: The type of activity, co-present others, the inanimate space, one’s own well-being, the atmosphere of the spaces or the weather. Thus, the situationally changing office nomads appreciate the spaces for interaction for their unconventional atmosphere, which goes along with the spatial mixing of work and non-work. At the same time, however, they also value the existence of the spaces for concentrated mental work, which rely on the concentrated work for oneself in co-presence of other silently working users. In this respect, they evaluate the change associated with the “flex-desk principle” (interview Simon, para. 32) positively with regard to their own placement in the CWS (cf. Sect. 10.3). Accordingly, their workplaces are mobile and rather reduced. This type, whose peculiarity lies in the situational positioning being adapted to one’s own needs in the CWS, is much less common in the field than

47  For

conventional and unconventional office workers, see also Bernhardt (2017, pp. 62–64).

10.4  User Types I: Situationally Changing Office Nomads …

323

one might assume at first glance.48 Moreover, it is more likely to be found among users who have not been in the CWS for a long time.49 One representative is coworker Theo, who has been working in Tabit for three months (cf. Bernhardt 2017, p. 62 f. for this and the following statements). He is the only interviewed user in Tabit who does not express any preferences for one of the two open spaces: He decides depending on his health condition, his mood and the presence or absence of colleagues, where he places himself in the CWS (cf. Sect. 10.1). For the interview, he took two photos of his workplaces, which show two different positions each in the Classic Office and in the Creative Space, expressing the flexibility to work in different settings with different atmospheres (cf. Fig. 10.19). While the workplace photo in the Creative Space looks unconventional, playful and innovative and does not give the impression that Theo is working right now, the photo in the Classic Office looks sober and one-sided, focused on concentrated mental work. Theo explains in the interview: “Then I actually have two different ge/ places of work, you can see that there, the one is up there with uh with uh OFFICE workstations and the other un/ down there is (1) just a little (1) more casual (inc.), (I: Mhm.) cozy” (interview Theo, paras. 68 f.). Theo associates different atmospheres (office vs. more casual, cozy atmosphere) with the two workplaces, between which he switches in his everyday work.50 The photos show that not only the atmosphere is more casual or cozy in the Creative Space, but also Theo’s posture (positioned on his favorite place in the Creative Space, the leather armchair, with crossed legs, which are raised on one of the swivel chairs). Also the motif of his laptop screen (toy car as desktop background (Creative Space) vs. excerpt of a programming code (Classic Office)) is adapted to the two atmospheres.51

48 For

example, Liegl (2014, p. 176 f.) emphasizes for his study that mobility for work nomads is a resource for shaping, stimulating and organizing their work and that the movements of the workers are also important for their productivity and creativity (ibid.). 49 Although there are also users who are relatively new members of the CWS and only use certain open spaces for their everyday work. 50 Theo notes that the two open spaces in Tabit elicit different behaviors from him. While he changes his workplace more frequently throughout the day in the Creative Space, he positions himself firmly in one place for the entire workday in the Classic Office, preferably at one of the two standing workstations. 51 This is a reference to the fact that the workplace photos could not have been taken spontaneously, but rather—especially the one in the Creative Space—were staged by Theo as snapshots to emphasize the distinction of the two atmospheres. Moreover, it should be noted that he has a narrow work space understanding focused on the laptop and the tabletop in relation to the workplace in the Classic Office, while it is important for him in the Creative Space to capture the work place extended by the view (see Sect. 10.1.2).

324

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

Fig. 10.19   Photo of Theo’s workspace: Left: Tabit Creative Space, right: Classic Office. (Photos: Theo)

In the case of Sargas, user Simon is a situational nomad. He has not only taken one workplace photo, but three different workplaces in the Silent Floor, the Vibrant Floor and the Café. In the interview, he explains how he uses the open spaces differently depending on his activities (see Sect. 10.1.1.1). Simon says that he has been in the Silent Floor most often. He likes the appealing aesthetics and the concentrated work atmosphere there: “I think it’s very nice on the second floor. That/ I think that’s the nicest coworking SPACE. (1) Uh (1) and it also happens that, (2) that/ (2) I, I have to get used to it, because I’m someone who feels very quickly at home, and then I do some nonsense. […] But uh (1) the people respect this concentrated mood. (I: Mhm.) And you notice that there is simply mutual uh/ (1) that, that you just (1) PAY ATTENTION, that the other one is not disturbed. And I find that very pleasant.” (interview Simon, para. 65)

In addition, there are flexible external screens in the Silent Floor, which Simon needs when he has to cut videos. Finally, he appreciates the Silent Floor’s (associated with doing being busy) rule of not having to be polite and greet, which also helps him focus on the work. All this supports Simon in disciplining himself in relation to his work. Although Tabit coworker Theo cannot express a preference for the Creative Space or the Classic Office, he notes that he is de facto more often in the Classic Office as a space for concentrated mental work: “So I think I go up MORE. (I: Mhm.) (1) Simply, yes, because it feels a little (1) yes, (?how MORE) like work-

10.4  User Types I: Situationally Changing Office Nomads …

325

ing (laughing) than down there” (interview Theo, paras. 107 f.). The explanation is much more diffuse for Theo than for Simon: The atmosphere has to feel like working. And at the same time, he sums up what Simon explains in detail. With the goal of working, the CWS users seek out and actively create the working atmosphere that suits them best. While the own placement of the situationally changing office nomads depends on the fit to the current needs and they appreciate both interactive and concentrated mental work oriented spaces for working, conventional and unconventional office workers generally prefer a working setting for their everyday work.

10.4.2 Conventional Office Workers “[I] always work in this Silent Floor. (I: Mhm.) And that’s also this one photo that I made, where (1) I also photographed [the sign] “Silent Floor”, that’s very important to me for my kind of work.” (interview Stefan, para. 5)

The conventional office workers include those coworkers who prefer to pursue their everyday work in the spaces for concentrated mental work. Their everyday work consists mainly of concentrated work for themselves, which they need to focus on. In this respect, these coworkers value a distraction-free, quiet and concentrated atmosphere. They appreciate a comfortable and ergonomic, conventional office workplace that supports the processing of mental work and that also symbolizes or feels like working to them. A simple and affectless design of the non-human space and co-present others who, like themselves, perform practices of doing being busy, contribute to a focused and concentrated working atmosphere, which these coworkers appreciate for their everyday work. They use the spaces for interaction according to the working setting for interactive work (such as phone calls or meetings)52 or also, independently of work, to communicate with other people, or as break or event venues. In addition, they also use the spaces for interaction for work that requires less concentration or as places of different work in the sense of creative or analog work (see Sect. 10.1.1.1). For these users, the spatial separation of work and non-work is not only important in terms of living and working place, but also in terms of the places of

52 This

becomes especially clear in the case study of Sargas with the more differentiated working settings, where the working setting of the Silent Floor encourages to leave the Open Space for verbal exchange.

326

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

the CWS. Especially those interactive spaces, whose work setting also includes activities of leisure or reproduction of their own work capacity, such as the Sargas Café, the Garden and the Tabit Creative Space, are often used by the conventional office workers exclusively for break activities as places of non-work. In this regard, Sargas coworker Serge comments on the Café: “Serge: I NEVER worked there [Sargas Café], I think, (I: Mhm.) maybe a couple of times in two years, but (1) nothing.” I: That’s too distracting for you or //too disturbing?// Serge: //Yeah, there are many/ PEOPLE, I mean they are cooking, they make noise and also sometimes the music is too loud, so pff yeah, you cannot really WORK. I just had like some meeting with I mean people coming and we work together from time to time and we just have a meeting there and eh, not TALK, but (1) in front I mean with a coffee, you know like (1) I mean I u/ JUST take breaks there, I mean I just go downstairs with people and have a CHAT and we have coffee together and, (1) but WORKING there is, is not my thing.” (interview Serge, paras. 208–210)

Although these interactive spaces are used by some exclusively as break places, they are usually very appreciated by the conventional office workers and often belong to their favorite places, as for example Sargas user Samir emphasizes: “The GARDEN of course I really like, it’s a really gi/ BIG plus for me. (I: Mhm.) Ehm, (1) yeah, the garden is a big plus. Ah the CAFE is nice. Ehm it’s too loud for me to work there, so, but (1) it’s nice” (interview Samir, para. 124). An exception and at the same time an extreme case regarding the separation of the places of work and non-work is Tabit user Tristan, who does not work in Tabit by choice and for whom the CWS, more precisely the Classic Office, is exclusively his work place (cf. for this and the following statements Bernhardt 2017, p. 63). He avoids the Creative Space as much as possible. Working without external screens on non-ergonomic “dining tables” with poor lighting and the mixing of activities of work and break do not fit his work space understanding: “I am interested in design. Design is an important topic in my life. (1) And furniture design (1) p/ particularly actually. (1) And what they have there, there I ge/ get just a headache, those are DINING tables. (1) On which you cannot really work. And (1) I need of course my MONITORS there. (I: Mhm.) And I cannot put them down quickly. I, I am not a developer, who ONLY needs a small screen, where he can write LINES, then/ I need a lot of graphic space for drawing and designing. That means, I am ANYWAY bound to them. And eh, (1) yes, and I do not know why I should make a Skype call DOWN there, yes. Down there the LIGHT is not so good. (1) Yes, and I do not like that. (1) And if then next to it someone is eating, coffee is made and eh table football/ Ta/ TABLE football is played, (1) then I am not well off there at ALL. So that is NOT at all my, (1) my thing. So (1) I have, (1) yes, I am there also to work.” (interview Tristan, para. 71)

10.4  User Types I: Situationally Changing Office Nomads …

327

Tristan clearly distances himself from the operators as well as from the developers, whom he sees as typical users of the Creative Space. Although he presents himself as a creative (who, unlike programmers, needs monitors with a lot of graphic space and good light to work), Tristan takes the attitude of a conservative employee: The spatial mixing of work and leisure does not fit for him, nor does working at dining tables. Tristan makes it clear that he is in Tabit to work and to perform, for which he needs a quiet office environment (ibid.). For Tristan, the Creative Space is a non-place, which is neither suitable as a work nor as a break place. Conventional office workers thus pursue, as their name also implies, a conventional understanding of work and work space, which is oriented towards performing concentrated mental work.

10.4.3 Unconventional Office Workers “[I] also have to say, I prefer working down there than up there. It has like two floors, and upstairs is more like office-like, right. Uh and downstairs is, is just like (1) YES, like, like someone’s living room, or, where, where you uh/ where you sit.” (interview Tanja, para. 33)

The unconventional office workers, on the other hand, prefer the aesthetically appealing and social atmosphere of the spaces for interaction for their everyday work. With regard to the non-human space and the atmosphere created by it, they prefer office-atypical, aestheticized spatial design and, associated with it, a warm, stimulating or cozy garden, living room or café atmosphere far away from the conventional office.53 In terms of the communicative atmosphere, they prefer a lively and interactive atmosphere to a quiet, concentrated work atmosphere and prefer the spaces for interaction, precisely because it is so lively there. Thus, Sargas user Sheldon, who describes himself as a “café person” (para. 106), states: “I suppose, eh I prefer noise around me than (1) silence. […] I can concentrate MORE when there’s stuff going on around than (1) when there’s not” (interview

53 This

is particularly evident in the case study of Tabit. This seems paradoxical at first, insofar as a typical motive for working in CWS is the escape from the home office and, associated with it, not infrequently the domestic living room. That the separation of living and working place is nevertheless important for the unconventional office workers is a recurring topic in the interviews. In this regard, the living room atmosphere in the work context of CWS is appreciated as a work atmosphere by some users, which points to a more casual image of work compared to the conventional office workers.

328

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

Sheldon, paras. 25 ff.). In this respect, they appreciate getting something from the other users during work (see Sect. 10.1.1.2). Or they perceive the atmosphere as not so noisy and thus less distracting, as Tabit user Till notes with regard to the Creative Space: “[T]he thing is, downstairs is also QUIET, but a BIT more lively. Upstairs is really extremely quiet. (1) And ALMOST a bit more STERILe upstairs. (1) Downstairs is a bit WARMER. (1) Uh this is not just about the air temperature, but also about the COLOR temperature and the PEOPLE. (I: Mhm.) But still within a framework, so that/ that you can still work well, concentrate.” (interview Till, para. 66)

Alternatively, unconventional office workers can create their own sound atmospheres with headphones to pursue more concentrated mental work. These coworkers can cope better with the spatial mixing of the spheres of work and non-work in the spaces for interaction than the conventional office workers. Thus, they are also able to redefine the work-remote leisure environment of the spaces for interaction into a work context and create a work space with a corresponding work atmosphere for themselves. A cozy feel-good atmosphere is then not only appreciated for the reproduction of labor power or for leisure activities or for interactive or different work, but rather serves in relation to everyday work to generate positive emotional states that enhance the productivity of one’s own labor power (see Bender 2013). The symbolic markers of what constitutes an appropriate workplace for the unconventional office workers vary: While some need a table and chair to perform their everyday work, others can also work on the bench, the sofa or the armchair in unconventional sitting positions (see Sect. 10.1.1.3). Typical for the unconventional office workers is a positive attitude towards the paperless office and a minimalist, reduced workplace that makes them mobile. They use the spaces for concentrated mental work in terms of the work setting, when they need to concentrate in peace, or for instrumental aspects, when they need, for example, a more comfortable chair or an additional screen. However, not all unconventional office workers use the spaces for concentrated mental work. Either they do not see any necessity to use them, or they do not have any desire to do so, as Tabit Coworker Tanja explains: “In that big thing I have, uh, I have never worked. (I: Mhm.) But it’s also not very APPEALING there, I have to say honestly. Because it probably looks MORE like an OFFICE. (Tanja and I laugh) Or like in the office than the rest, yes” (interview Tanja, para. 71). The Classic Office represents for Tanja a “big thing” from which she clearly distances herself verbally and which radiates an atmosphere of reluctance for her, which

10.5  Interim Conclusion: The Subjective Appropriation …

329

is why she has not worked there yet. She justifies this with the non-human space and its negatively connoted office atmosphere for her. As the Sargas Vibrant Floor itself occupies an intermediate position in relation to the work settings interaction and concentrated mental work, so do its users Sophie and Sabine, who mainly stay there at the time of the interview, in between: “[Here] I actually find it a pretty good mix. You also get a bit of what’s going on DOWN [note AB: Café] and still have a quiet atmosphere” (interview Sabine, para. 9). Both unconventional office workers find it important to work in a lively environment, although it should not be too loud. For them, the Vibrant Floor is a good compromise between the quiet Silent Floor and the vibrant Café. In addition, it allows the coworkers—unlike the Silent Floor—to talk, which user Sophie finds particularly important: “I mainly work on the first floor. Because I FEEL that the second floor, it’s more cozy, (I: Mhm.) but I don’t like when people don’t let me talk. (Laughing both) Because I, I, I don’t need to be really concentrated. (I: Mhm.) (Clicking tongue) So I prefer if there’s like (1) sound around, like noise around me. Not, not really, no, not a lot of NOISE. But I don’t like when everything it’s so quiet. […] SO I normally work here on the first floor. (1) And on the other HAND for me the café is too noisy. (I: Mhm.) So I like, like this.” (Sophie, interview Scott_Sophie, paras. 11 ff.)

The possibility to talk is more important to her than the inviting, cozy atmosphere of the Silent Floor, which appeals to her more on an emotional level. Conversely, for user Sabine the Café with its café atmosphere is her favorite place in Sargas (where she initially also worked mainly), but for work it is now too loud for her there. For unconventional office workers, it is characteristic that they have an unconventional work and work space understanding and seek an appealing atmosphere away from the conventional office as well as the liveliness of the spaces for interaction as their basic work setting.

10.5 Intermediate Conclusion: The Subjective Development of the Spaces of Work The chapter on the subjective development of the CWSs as work spaces is concluded by working out the user types. Table 10.1 summarizes the user types and their characteristics again in a comparative way. As could be shown, the users differ in their understanding of work (space), which is accompanied by different spatial syntheses and a different placement behavior. The typology has once again made clear how important atmospheres

330

10  Subject Perspective II: The Development of the Spaces of Work

Table 10.1   General space preference for everyday work: user types. (Own illustration)

Situationally chang- Conventional office Unconventional ing office nomads workers office workers Work(space)- under- Rather postmodern work and workspace standing understanding: Can cope well with or appreciate the mixing of work and nonwork

Rather conventional work and workspace understanding: Separation of work and non-work, setting boundaries

Rather postmodern work and workspace understanding: Can cope well with or appreciate the mixing of work and non-work

Preferred work setting

None

Concentrated mental Interaction work

Own work

• Concentrated mental work • Interactive work • Less concentrated work • Associated with: Getting something from others

• Concentrated mental work • Associated with: Focusing on oneself and one’s own activity

Own workplace

Rather reduced (but also occupied)

Rather occupied (but Rather reduced (but also reduced) also occupied)

Preferred atmosphere Situationally changof interpersonal com- ing munication Preferred atmosphere generated by symbolic-material non-human space

Situationally changing

Quiet, concentrated, work atmosphere

• Interactive work • Less concentrated work • Associated with: Getting something from others • But also: Concentrated mental work

Lively, interactive, social

Focused, distraction- Cozy, warm, stimulating, appealing free Living room, café Office atmosphere atmosphere

and feelings are in relation to the development of the CWS spaces as work spaces. Contrary to the assumption that the users look for situationally changing settings and atmospheres for working (cf. Liegl 2014), it was shown that in reality only few coworkers do this. Instead, the majority of the coworkers have preferences for a certain work setting or a certain basic atmosphere in relation to their everyday work. And contrary to the assumption that atmospheres as “captivating powers of feeling” (Böhme 2013c, p. 29) trigger similar states of pleasure or displeasure to work among the users, it turned out that the spatial experience of the coworkers is different. Accordingly, they develop the CWS premises differently and constitute different (work) spaces at the same place: While an aestheticized,

10.4  User Types I: Situationally Changing Office Nomads …

331

creativity-enhancing, cozy and social space for interaction invites some users only to spend their break there, it is for other users also a place to perform their everyday work. And vice versa, the quiet and rather distraction-free designed spaces for concentrated mental work are for some coworkers unused places that they never visit, while they are daily places of work for other users. The spaces for concentrated mental work thus do not have a meaning in the workday for all coworkers. The spaces for interaction, on the other hand, play a significant role for the experience of the CWS as a whole and the identification of the coworkers with the CWS in general (cf. on this and the following statements Bernhardt 2017, p. 65). The free choice of the work place is important in order to be able to identify with it. As the interview with Tristan showed, he can neither identify with the concept of the CWS nor with the open spaces of Tabit, even though he himself pursues a creative profession. His example makes clear that an aestheticized office design in the corporate context can also provoke counter- and withdrawal strategies among the employees (Prinz 2012, p. 265). Because the fit between user and place is significant in terms of well-being and identification with the CWS, as well as for the constitution of suitable work spaces, in order to be productive and creative (cf. Bender 2013). After this chapter has analyzed the subjective development of CWSs as spaces of work, the following chapter focuses on the second core function of CWSs and thus how the coworkers develop CWSs as spaces of communitization.

Subject Perspective III: The Development of the Spaces of Communitization

11

In the context of the work settings concentrated mental work and interaction, Sect. 8.2 already elaborated how a communal atmosphere and a sense of belonging (together) are created through the spaces and their associated atmospheres and practices in everyday CWS life. Thus, for the spaces for concentrated mental work, it is less the space in its materiality than rather the shared knowledge that here concentrated work is done for oneself alongside each other, that has a communitizing force. In this regard, practices of doing being busy are particularly important, which indicate the coworkers as working and prevent them from having to interact with the co-present others. In addition, a connecting uniformity of the space is created by the present coworkers practising doing being busy, which also supports the communal atmosphere. For the spaces for interaction, on the other hand, social interactions are deliberately fostered by the spatial arrangements, which contribute to the creation of a communal atmosphere and a sense of belonging (together). Thus, the non-human space is designed as a stimulating space in terms of colors, materials and artifacts. The tables are mostly arranged sociopetally and there is consensus that users can join an already occupied table. There are special tables and other social meeting points where encounters and exchange easily occur. The spaces remind less of an office than rather of officeremote areas like a living room or café with corresponding mood qualities. Practices of doing being open create closeness between the present and contribute to a social and interactive atmosphere of interpersonal communication. In these practices, especially members of the operating team, and here primarily the coworking hosts or community managers, are involved. In doing so, the encounters and social interactions are not only fostered within the framework of the material curating, but also by the social curating: Be it through the organization of events,

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 A. Bernhardt, Coworking Atmospheres, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41193-0_11

333

334

11  Subject Perspective III …

the introduction to each other by the community manager, trust-building practices and rituals or other practices of doing being open. In the (active and passive) participation of coworkers in community activities, a sense of belonging together is strengthened (cf. Garrett et al. 2017). To what extent the coworkers engage in the curated communitization through interactions, by attending events or getting into conversation while playing table football, for example, is up to them. Likewise, it is their decision what kind of relationships they build with the other users. The importance of the social component of coworking for the users was already evident in the motives of the coworkers for working in the CWS (cf. Sect. 9.1). In contrast to employees of a conventional company, the relationships between the coworkers are less inevitable due to belonging and cooperation on common projects. In the CWS, the users voluntarily build relationships with other coworkers out of their own motivation, exchange ideas with each other, work together or spend their leisure time together. In this chapter, the perspective of the coworkers on the much vaunted CWS community in the discourse is once again taken more closely (cf. Sect. 2.2.2) and examined how the users access CWSs as spaces of communitizaton (cf. gray marking in Fig. 11.1). In Sect. 11.1, it is worked out how the coworkers experience the social relationships and interactions in the CWS and what importance they attach to them. In Sect. 11.2, the focus is on the events and activities initiated by the users themselves and again the question of to what extent the coworkers participate in community-building rituals of the CWS and what weight they give to them. As a conclusion of these results, two user types are again identified, which express typical attitudes in relation to the experienced belonging to the CWS community and the social relationships and interactions sought in the CWS. The data basis for the following explanations are the user interviews and the corresponding photographs, whereby my experiences as a coworker and the observations recorded in the field notes as part of the self-observation are also included in some places.

11.1 Experienced Relationships and Social Interactions In this chapter, the focus is first on the social relationships in the CWS as subjectively experienced by the interviewed users, whereby a wide range of relationship qualities is shown. Subsequently, the different forms of social interactions with other coworkers or operators are illuminated. Following on from this, it is considered what differences there are with regard to the development of social relation-

11.1  Experienced Relationships and Social Interactions

335

Fig. 11.1   Conceptual framing—locating chapter 11 (gray marking). (Own illustration)

ships and interactions and what role the duration of membership or the regularity of CWS visits play in this respect.

11.1.1 Experienced Relationships with Other Coworkers Tabit user Tristan, who has been working in the Tabit premises before the CWS was founded, describes his relationship to the other coworkers as “Partly friendly, partly eh (1) collegial, partly non-existent. (1) Partly/ Well i/ NO negative things. (1) Actually m/ much sympathy for most people” (interview Tristan, para. 79). He thus indicates a range of different relationship qualities. In other interviews, the experienced relationships to the other coworkers are described as “friendly” and “respectful” (interview Sandro, para. 83) or “friendly, but distant” (interview Sina, para. 99), “nice” (interview Sebastian_1, para. 98), “pleasant” (interview Tamara, para. 69), “GOOD” (interview Tarek, para. 224) or “collegial” (interview Timo, para. 81). The friendly relationship among each other is repeatedly emphasized, along with the statement that no other user had ever made a negative

336

11  Subject Perspective III …

impression on the person interviewed. This is also the case for user Timo, who after nine months of membership in Tabit states: “I have, for example, NO coworker, where I could now say: ‚Yes, he/she BOTHERS me, he/she ANNOYS me, because he/she always does THIS and THAT.‘ (I: Mhm.) Um. So far I have got along with everyone very well” (interview Timo, para. 82). Conflicts are hardly reported in the interviews (exceptions will be discussed in Chap. 13). User Serge, who has been in Sargas for a year, distinguishes different categories of relationships that he has to the other coworkers: “I would say, that are like two big categories. So there are like the friendly (I: Mhm.) and I know THEM, we go out together, ah we hang out, we talk and blablabla. (1) And then there are people ah, who I see every day, but I don’t have any kind of, I don’t know, in relations eh with them. Then maybe I don’t know, eh they don’t talk. I mean we are not supposed to talk, because we are on the Silent Floor, but STILL (I smiles) ahm (1) Where a/ When th/ there are these social events like eh Community Breakfast, community dinners, they never come. Ah so basically that’s the I think, the, the right moment when you (1) CAN start talking with people, you just have been working close to each other (I: Mhm.) and ahm/ But I mean, if they don’t show up, it’s a bit HARDer to start talking and/ (1) So eh I mean, there are THESE people, I never, I, I pff I just SEE them and okay, say Goodbye, say Hello, but never really get to know. I don’t even know what they do. (I: Mhm.) And eh, and then there are people who are friends. So ehm may/ IN BETWEEN there are just I don’t know maybe a few people I just talked to them from time to time, but ah that’s it, when we MEET HERE, and then that’s this the/ that’s it basically.” (interview Serge, para. 116)

On the one hand, Serge has established very close relationships in the form of friendships with other coworkers, with whom he also engages in private activities. On the other hand, there are coworkers whom he only knows by sight and with whom he has very superficial, or as he says, no form of relationship at all, except that they greet and say goodbye to each other within the norms of politeness.1 In this respect, he presents a wide range, in the middle of which he locates a third group of a few people, with whom he had occasional contact in Sargas, but whom he does not meet outside Sargas. Similarly, Tabit coworker Toni, who has been in the CWS for a comparable length of time—for just over a year—mentions

1 According

to Serge’s statements, there is also hardly any possibility to get to know these coworkers better, as they do not participate in the community events and in the Silent Floor there should be no talking (see Chap. 13).

11.1  Experienced Relationships and Social Interactions

337

the range of relationship qualities: “Uh (1) quite different. Depends on who. (1) Uh from (2) from HELLO, when we are HERE, and somewhere OUTSIDE we would hardly recognize each other. To uh (2) to almost become good friends. (I: Mhm.) So the whole spectrum” (interview Toni, para. 85). The statements of Tristan, Serge and Toni refer to different intensities in relation to the quality of the social relationships that the coworkers experience. First, friendships develop between users. The coworkers get to know each other better over time and build up intensive relationships with a private character. They also meet outside the CWS for common (private) activities. The development of friendships is comparatively demanding. Thus, especially those coworkers who have been in the CWS for a longer time and are more or less regularly there, like Tristan, Serge and Toni, have established friendships with other users. Secondly, coworkers whose start-ups or companies are located in the CWS have a comparatively intensive bond with their colleagues, which is stabilized by the professional context. The common basis of the relationship here, as in the conventional company context, is belonging to the company. In this respect, a specific corporate culture with its own rituals is cultivated. Tabit user and Thuban employee Thorsten states about his relationship to his team members: “And then there are the people you work with every day. (I: Mhm.) And those are also the ones you/ Yes (2) with whom you actually talk every day” (interview Thorsten, para. 97). With the colleagues, work is done and break activities are shared, whether it is eating lunch together or playing table football, or—as in the case of the start-up of Tabit coworker Troy, for example, the weekly meeting for “Wine Friday”, when a bottle of wine is drunk together with the team in the Creative Space at the end of the day (cf. interview Troy, para. 127 and field notes AP13). Sometimes, as in the conventional company, friendships also develop from the collegial relationships between the colleagues. In contrast to a conventional company, however, the work team is embedded in the CWS context and thus the larger community of the CWS, which is also important for these users. Troy also notes that in Tabit, “the BIG feeling, uh (1) like [in] a BIG COMPANY” (interview Troy, para. 106) is conveyed. In this respect, he does not only consider the members of his start-up as colleagues, but also speaks of the other fixed-desk coworkers in the Classic Office of “good colleagues and other companies […], which we also like to, (1) (that is), (1) work with or at least be with. (1) Or ARE” (interview Troy, para. 5). Thuban employee Thorsten, who, as he describes in the quote above, has close contact with his team colleagues, notes, however, that the contact with the other coworkers is less intensive:

338

11  Subject Perspective III …

“[I]t is a relatively loose relationship that you have with the other coworkers. (1) (I: Mhm.) (2) (clicks his tongue) Mostly it is somehow, when you are outside smoking or at (1) at, at lunch it is also often like that, that you exchange ideas with each other, when you somehow get take away food and meet down there at the lunch table. Then (1) you hear again a little bit about what the others do. But it is not like that, that you somehow uh (1) every week you go to everyone and somehow go and talk and have a cup of coffee, that is somehow not my thing, so (1) that is more like a little bit (1) YES. (3) So I do not look for it every day or so the, the exchange with the others. (?I concentrate) probably the most so on my TEAM.” (interview Thorsten, para. 98)

That one’s own corporate culture and the CWS culture match each other is important. This is emphasized not only by the employees of the operator company Thuban, but also start-up member Troy states: “I think, our company culture also FITS IN well here and so, that (1) uh (1) we do not hire any prima donnas here” (interview Troy, para. 136). On the part of the start-ups in the CWS, signals of openness towards the other coworkers are also sent. Such a symbol is, for example, the open door of the team office of Tabit user Tamara as a signal of doing being open, which invites passers-by to enter the office (cf. Sect. 10.1.3): “[W]ith US (1) someone ALWAYS stops and comes in” (interview Tamara, para. 75). Thirdly, the other coworkers can also take on the role of (substitute)colleagues of a conventional office for the users—and especially for those who work in the CWS alone—with whom they spend the common break, eat lunch, smoke or chat. This becomes particularly clear with Sargas coworker Stefan, who literally speaks of his “colleagues” with whom he ritually spends a joint coffee break in the morning and after lunch (cf. interview Stefan, paras. 35 ff. and more precisely Sect. 11.2). Although Sargas user Sandro does not call the “familiar faces” on the Silent Floor his colleagues, he speaks of them as if they were colleagues in a conventional office, whom he greets and with whom he sometimes spends his breaks: “Usually there are familiar faces there. (1) Ehm (1) people you/ (2) ah you greet in the MORNING and then, when you get to know them, and eh sometimes you, you share a coffee or a lunch” (interview Sandro, para. 29). Fourthly, there are also professional relationships between some coworkers, which have arisen from working in the CWS and which have often been established through members of the operating team (cf. more detailed Sect. 11.1.2). Sargas user Sandro speaks of “functional connections […] or OCCASIONAL connections” (interview Sandro, para. 83), which he clearly distinguishes from the closer, personal relationships with other coworkers, which are based on similar interests.

11.1  Experienced Relationships and Social Interactions

339

Fifthly, there are superficial relationships with other coworkers, which are maintained through interactions within the framework of doing being open practices or which can also initiate more intense relationships. After two months of staying at Sargas, Samantha notes that she has only built up a small talk relationship with a few users whom she sees regularly and that the high turnover in the CWS entails that most coworkers are unknown to her (cf. also in the following Sect. 11.1.3): “I admit, there are ehm sort of a HANDFUL who I see regularly. (I: Mhm.) And who I ehm (2) know, know well enough such as yourself to say hello. And (3) eh but most, most people are ehm/ (1) most people are new faces here, (1) (I: Mhm.) people, new people come through (1) every week and stay for a few days, hm. (I: Mhm.) YEAH, and then, and then they might pop back in a few weeks’ time but, (2) yeah. (I: Mhm.) Ehm, I think having the community dinners and (1) breakfasts are really good, ehm (1) a good thing, (I: Mhm, mhm.) yeah, I really enjoy that.” (interview Samantha, paras. 119 f.)

Here, Samantha refers to the internal networking events for the coworkers, which create spaces for encounter and which she appreciates (see below Sect. 11.2). This shows that Samantha values the contact with the other coworkers and that she would like to build closer relationships with them. doing being open can also serve to maintain superficial relationships—without the desire to intensify them. This is the case with Sargas user Sina, who describes her relationship with the other coworkers as well as the contact with them as friendly or nice, but at the same time also distant (interview Sina, para. 99). She emphasizes the importance of the community events, where friendships simply come about, but she does not look for them (see below Sect. 11.2): “[M]ost of the time I smi/ me/ smile at them nicely. (2) Or we talk a few words, somehow like that. “And, what do you do?” Or, (1) yes, and: “What’s new with you?”, somehow briefly in the tea kitchen, but not more than that. (I: Mhm.) But otherwise really just NICE, but (2) yes. Exactly. Distant somewhere too. […] I mean, if I wanted to seek contact with them/ hm WANTED, I mean, there is a COMMUNITY dinner every two weeks, then there is also a Community BREAKfast. So you could spend the whole day eh, (1) of course, somehow with the people. And that’s the cool thing about Sargas. But somehow I don’t really want to/ So SOMEwhere I always think, I want to, but since I don’t set my priority on it, eh I don’t seem to want it that badly. (laughs) I mean, I have other friends too. (I: Mhm.) So, I don’t really need any new friends. That’s why it’s okay like this, I think.” (interview Sina, paras. 99-101)

340

11  Subject Perspective III …

Her contact with the majority of the Sargas coworkers consists of doing being open in the form of mutual smiling and small talk. Even looser are the relationships when the other coworkers are known by sight, without having interacted with them, as Serge also addresses in the quote already mentioned at the beginning (see interview Serge, para. 116). Sina’s example makes clear, however, that this also expresses connectedness. That she knows the other coworkers at least by sight and “they are not some RANDOM people or people I fundamentally DISlike” (interview Sina, para. 103) is important to her. For Sargas coworker Sabine, after seven months of part-time membership, knowing the other coworkers and thus identifying as members of the CWS in-group also represents a connectedness: “[O]ver time I know them now, so, at least most of them by sight. When they/ even when someone new is there” (interview Sabine, para. 91). A sense of belonging to the CWS community thus also arises when one is able to recognize the other coworkers and identify new coworkers as established members of the CWS. Finally, as already explained in Sect. 10.1.1, the other coworkers also have a meaning for the users in relation to the performance of their own work as indeterminate others and part of the atmosphere. Thus, the other users in co-presence shape the communicative character of the atmosphere of the spaces without the need for interaction with them. The different qualities of social relations can be systematized as shown in Fig. 11.2. The separation made into different forms of relationships is an analytical one, in order to show the different qualities. In doing so, a coworker usually has very different social relations to other coworkers. Which types of relations the individual maintains with the other coworkers and how much closeness he/she seeks with the others is individually different, as already became clear from the examples of Samantha and Sina. Before going into more detail on this, the experienced forms of interaction with the other users will be worked out in the following.

Fig. 11.2   Qualities of social relations in the CWS. (Own illustration)

11.1  Experienced Relationships and Social Interactions

341

11.1.2 Experienced Social Interactions In the CWS, different social interactions come into play, such as informal social interactions, social support and cooperation (cf. Gerdenitsch et al. 2016). A central feature of a CWS is the exchange among each other, as Tabit coworker and Thuban employee Timo points out in the interview: “(Figure11.3) I photographed a coworker there, because uh THAT in my opinion is exactly something of what, what makes Tabit. The name already says ”COWORKING Space“. That means, there are also other PEOPLE there. (I: Mhm.) And uh, Thuban would allow me uh to work ONLY from home. But I also appreciate it, uh to have other people around me, to be able to exchange socially, uh, and, and to talk to the people. And that’s why I photographed the coworker there. Because he is now working there, but it also happens that he stands up, walks somewhere, uh, we meet, I ask him something, uh sometimes we are also downstairs at the beer (inc.), drink something together. And uh I appreciate the atmosphere here VERY much. And that’s also the reason why I chose the motif there.” (interview Timo, paras. 30 f.)

This interview excerpt again shows the importance of the analog-material community space for the coworkers, even though they can work virtually and independently of location. In the CWS, different people meet in changing constellations. The co-presence at one place, the CWS, creates proximity, which

Fig. 11.3   Coworker in the Tabit Creative Space (Photo: Timo)

342

11  Subject Perspective III …

can lead to interactions. Social meeting points in the spaces for interaction (see Sect. 8.2.2), certain break rituals, community events (see Sect. 8.3) or the members of the operating team bring coworkers together, create accidental and/or intentional encounters, which can lead to the development of professional as well as private relationships and are framed by practices of doing being open. The CWS is a place of exchange, where the users get to know something from the other people present and where situations arise in the sense of accelerated serendipity (see Sect. 2.2.2). For Tabit user Thorsten, this is the special feature of coworking in Tabit: “That is actually THE, where (3) YES, what coworking IS and (4) also, that there are always some THINGS COMING UP, so (1) uh actually through ENCOUNTERS, that, that ARE THERE” (interview Thorsten, para. 18). Practices of doing being open facilitate getting in touch with each other: Thus, the interaction with each other is described as “casual” (interview Toni, para. 41, interview Thorsten, para. 131) and the atmosphere compared to a “classic office” also as “MORE CASUAL” (see interview Timo, paras. 12 ff.) or that of the Sargas Café compared to conventional cafés again as more open (see interview Sheldon, para. 80). Even coworkers who are not actively looking for exchange with the other users in the CWS appreciate the exchange of ideas nevertheless. Social support in the form of mutual help and knowledge exchange is not only highly valued in the coworking discourse, but also experienced in everyday life: What makes “CO” in the name coworking is also discussed in other user interviews, and here more strongly in the case of Tabit: The coworkers experience synergies, mutual help and learn from other users or members of the operating team: “[I] asked two of them for HELP somehow, because I started to program my website and, (1) yes, and then I didn’t get any FURTHER. And I knew, uh, one of them is a programmer. And then I asked him if he could help me. (1) And, yes, he helped me.” (interview Sabine, para. 91) “[I] used to do MORE PR work (I: Mhm.) PR, press work, media work and so on. And now I also have to take over certain MARKETING tasks. And there are also things that I am not so proficient in, that is, things that I KNOW that they exist, but I uh (laughing) don’t have all the tru/ tricks. And I mean, now after the meeting with you I have a meeting with someone from Tabit, who does this every day and he will show me a few things quickly and that is uh/ that is GREAT, that you can do that so quickly, yes.” (interview Tanja, para. 21) “(Figure 11.4) [T]his was actually a situation where I said that we just IMPLICITLY get to know what others do. (1) (clicks his tongue) Because he/ HE came into the SPACE and had spilled water over his computer. And then we talked about how

11.1  Experienced Relationships and Social Interactions

343

Fig. 11.4   Helping in the Tabit Creative Space (Photo: Thorsten)

we can best do it now and he somehow overheard, by chance. And then he said: Yes, he happened to have a hair dryer with him (laughs). (I: Mhm.) So EXACTLY on that day HE had the right solution for the PROBLEM. (I: Mhm.) That was a huge coincidence, but uh (1) that was somehow uh (1) COOL (laughs). Cool moment somehow, that someone just notices also: ‘You have the problem XY. And I just have the solution for it.’ And (knocking) that is actually/ I think that is (1) something that happens a lot, or, that you just listen in and then you can quickly give an INPUT and maybe it helps them then (1) (I: Mhm.) even though you are not involved in their PROJECT. (1) And that was EXACTLY the case here.” (interview Thorsten, para. 54)

The interview excerpts show that the support and help on site is experienced as spontaneous and uncomplicated. The coworkers have knowledge and skills to help other users with specific questions and topics. “Co” also stands for Collaboration. The professional interaction in the form of cooperation or customer client relationships takes place individually and depending on the industry to varying degrees. On the one hand, there are coworkers who have not (yet) worked with other users or who do not expect to do so. For example, Sargas coworker Stefan, who has not met anyone in the CWS who comes from his field, although he notes that there is indeed cooperation among coworkers: “[N]ow for a programmer or for a graphic designer, (1) he might find his

344

11  Subject Perspective III …

network here, the professional ones, he also gets ahead here. And I know that people here do things together, who only met here. (I: Mhm.) That’s not the case for ME yet, unfortunately” (interview Stefan, para. 97). On the other hand, there are users who actively seek opportunities for cooperation in the CWS, such as Sargas coworker and web developer Samantha. She values the CWS focus on sustainability and the fit with her own values and uses the CWS to engage in professional exchange with other coworkers who work on sustainable projects and to get involved in corresponding projects as part of her job search (see interview Samantha, paras. 29 ff., para. 127 and para. 153). In both operating cases, members of the operator teams play key roles in mediating cooperation and professional contacts between coworkers. In the case of Sargas, community manager Samuel plays a central role in this regard, as shown, for example, by the statements of Sargas coworker and graphic designer Sabine, who tells about her experience with (paid) cooperation in the CWS: “[W]ith TWO I have (1) worked together / So one is also a/ who also now practically/ a FOUNDER so to speak. (1) […] she needs a logo and somehow a website. So a website, which another person sets up, but that has to somehow fit. And she asked me/ actually she asked Samuel, and Samuel then forwarded the contact. (2) And (3) then, and then, exactly, then I have another/ another one, for whom I also always make icons and small illustrations, who ALSO has a start-up here. (I: Mhm.) Uh (1) and he has asked me several times now. (1) So these are my two, with whom I work TOGETHER.” (interview Sabine, para. 91)

Samuel, however, also stands in direct professional interaction with coworkers, as for example web developer Serge tells, with whom he works on a few projects (interview Serge, para. 127): “Samuel also has like this ah COMPANY. E/ they just started with eh the other coworking with SEAN, […] And so basically YA they, they asked me ehm to ma/ It’s a little, very, VERY small project, it’s just ONE day of work, it’s not a big project. But maybe this is the starting of I don’t know, some (2) ah, we could work together. Eh, I also made in the past like fall/ a SMALL changes for the Sargas website, just helping the manager who were starting to make eh (1) small changes, so I was also helping HIM, but I wouldn’t say I was working like, it’s just like HELping a friend.” (interview Serge, paras. 160 ff.)

This excerpt from the interview shows how closely professional and private interactions or relationships can blur in the CWS: For example, Serge talks about the changes to the Sargas website not being work, but rather helping a friend, which suggests unpaid work. In the case of Tabit, the community manager Tom plays

11.1  Experienced Relationships and Social Interactions

345

less of a role for the coworkers in terms of facilitating professional contacts than other members of the operating team. The facilitation of opportunities for collaboration among the users, however, does not only come from the operating team, but also from other coworkers, as the example of Tamara shows: “For example, we needed someone, uh, who can support us in DESIGN. And there is uh/ From the COWORking Space, two people recommended a person to us independently of each other. (I: Mhm.) And THAT’s how, for example, synergies arose” (interview Tamara, para. 71). The different examples also indicate that the coworkers who experience collaboration—as also mentioned above in the quote from Stefan (see interview Stefan, para. 97)—mainly come from areas such as IT, film or graphic design and offer services to support other companies (see Good Partners Configuration at Spinuzzi 2012). There are also professional relationships and interactions between the rented start-ups of Tabit and the operating companies. In these cases, the start-ups are customers of the operating companies. For example, Tamara’s start-up and Tristan’s company are customers of the IT operating company Thuban. Troy’s start-up works with both operating companies of Tabit. “[W]e work with a few companies. (I: Aha) So with Tiaki DA, that is/ They do a bit of design for us, for uh (1) for WEB and otherwise for (1) printed things. Uh (1) and THUBAN, uh we have worked with them for, for a LONG time basically. They, (1) they do a bit of development for us. They are/ they are developers, uh, (1) on so/ Where WE don’t have the core competence, there we/ use Thuban or other people like that. (1) Yes. Especially with these two companies we work together.” (interview Troy, para. 7)

Later on, Troy emphasizesthat between his start-up and the operating companies there is “MORE than just a professional (1) hm (1) ah COOPERATION or something” (para. 136) and that they are “also good friends” or “tenants”. Here too, the blurring of professional and private relationships becomes clear. However, not all coworkers observe collaboration between the users in the CWS, as user Sebastian notes for Sargas: “THIS coworking space is mostly for people, for aloners (1) that work alone, or work alone, who/ work with other people eh (1) somewhere else (smiles) (I: Mhm.) and not here. Sometimes they, (1) they CAN (1) FIND projects together, there is also a lot of WEB designers and GRAPHIC designers (I: Mhm.) (1) But I don’t see that happen very much either.” (interview Sebastian_1. para. 94)

Apart from the professional groups also mentioned by Stefan, user Sebastian states for Sargas that cooperation among the users is rather the exception. However, not all coworkers experience CWSs as spaces of exchange, learning from

346

11  Subject Perspective III …

each other or cooperation. There are also users whose expectations regarding the exchange and cooperation with other coworkers are higher than the actual interactions they experience in reality. For example, the expectations of Tabit user and programmer Thomas were not met in terms of professional exchange or cooperation opportunities2: “When I have a problem at work, where I don’t know what to do, then it is also like that, that I sit somewhere else or go for a walk. (1) (I: Hm) I have to say, that is a BIT of what I thought, what is MORE, what does NOT happen so much, that you then talk to someone who is also in the office, a little bit about it. That happened, but not as much as I thought. […] Maybe it’s also because of ME, that I’m maybe too introverted at that point or whatever. But I had assumed that more would come out of it, that you say: ‘Oh, (1) there I / I have something here, I can’t get any further. Do you have an idea?’, or something. THAT you could have, that you do it mutually. It happens A BIT, but it’s a bit less than I ge/ than I assumed.” (interview Thomas, paras. 51 ff.) “[N]ow I’m looking for projects sometimes, I was also a bit LOOKING for them. And there you could certainly also find cooperation, but at the moment there is no need there. That means, that did not come about. But it WOULD have happened, if there had been something, right. (I: (1) So you couldn’t implement any project/) I couldn’t acquire any there, but that would be in a way/ People know me and they can FIND me, when I (1) am needed. […] But nobody needs me at the moment.” (interview Thomas, paras. 243 ff.)

Thomas explains the non-occurrence of professional interactions in the first case with his introversion, in the second case with the lack of orders—both reasons that do not fundamentally question the CWS as a space of networking. This fits with the strategies of the users, which are applied to cope with experienced ambivalences in the CWS (cf. following Sect. 13.3.1).

11.1.3 Individual Differences in the Building of Social Relationships How intense the social relationships are, which the individual builds up, is controlled by the coworkers and depends not only on their own personality, but also on—as the example of the Sargas coworkers Samantha and Sina in Sect. 11.1.1 2 Although

he, as he further explains, in terms of his private problems in the CWS, he did receive support and was able to talk about them (cf. interview Thomas, para. 55).

11.1  Experienced Relationships and Social Interactions

347

showed—how strongly the users seek contact with others on their own initiative. Before going into this, two more influencing factors that determine the access to different social relationships are examined in more detail: the duration of belonging to the CWS and the frequency of using the CWS. With increasing duration of membership and regular attendance, all forms of social relationships are open to the coworkers. Long-established, regularly present coworkers have thus built up more intensive relationships with other (also long-established and regular) users. This is also the case for the long-established Sargas user Stefan, who says he knows “all these old-timers” of Sargas (cf. for this and the following statements interview Stefan, paras. 68 ff.). At the same time, he emphasizes that he does not know all coworkers in the CWS, which he explains with the “high turnover” and the “coming and going” of users, whom he, if at all, only gets to know superficially in the context of small talks and community dinners. Associated with the flexibility, the coworking concept is thus inherently characterized by the fact that the composition of co-present users is constantly changing. For long-established, regularly present coworkers, this also represents an enrichment, as for example Sargas coworker Serge explains: “There is a GOOD ah (2) ah BALANCE between ehm (1) FIXED coworkers, who are here every day or more or less so, and NEW people. (I: Mhm.) So it’s good, because you have like these core friends and core of coworkers, but you also get to know ah new people and I mean, (1) so I think it’s pretty interesting” (interview Serge, para. 151). In this context, Serge refers to another aspect: For him, the CWS not only has the right balance in terms of consistency or turnover of coworkers, but also the right size to be able to meet each other and thus not be anonymous (ibid.). This is not only important to Serge, but is also addressed in other interviews. On the other hand, a high turnover makes it difficult for new or sporadically present coworkers to build up more intensive relationships that go beyond small talk contacts. This issue is more Sargas-specific, especially against the background that some new users here are not only new in Sargas, but also in Salmstadt and have to build up a circle of social contacts. Thus, there are coworkers, like the couple Scott and Sophie, who are new in Salmstadt and after a week in Sargas have not yet established any connections to other coworkers, contrary to their expectations. In this regard, Sophie says that she also does not have the feeling that the others would be interested in them: “Yeah, we, what WE (1) talk sometimes is that we feel that people here don’t (laughing) take care a lot for ourselves. FIRST when we arrived here we felt that it was, people was NICE and was like, ‘Oh that we are gonna have friends here.‘ But after

348

11  Subject Perspective III …

one week we haven’t met anybody. So when we feel that people it’s like really ehm on their OWN, (I: Mhm.) like they arrive, they work, they leave. And, and I think that MAYBE (1) we should have more breakfast like that one [note AB: Community Breakfast]. (I: Mhm.) So you can (I: Mhm.) know other people. Because I UNDERstand that when you are working you don’t care take care about other things, it’s your/ (Scott: Yeah.) It’s your work.” (Sophie, interview Scott_Sophie, para. 240)

Sophie contrasts between the initial expectation of finding friends in Sargas and the experience of not having built any relationships in the CWS after a week.3 In this regard, she indicates that she feels that the other coworkers, who practice doing being busy, want to be by themselves at their work, without being disturbed. Only at communal rituals like the Community Breakfast do the other coworkers seem to be accessible to her.4 Sheldon is also new to Salmstadt and has been visiting the Sargas Café occasionally for a month. He indicates that he has the feeling of not knowing so many people in Sargas (see for this and the following statements interview Sheldon, para. 77). His interactions with others remain on practices of doing being open. Sheldon notes that he himself does not (yet) feel belonging to Sargas. But he also sees that the members of the operating team and established users have built close social relationships. Building more intense social relationships in the CWS usually takes more time for sporadically present users. However, there are also exceptions, such as Sargas user Simon, who already knew members of the operating team before joining the CWS and also had the experience of being “QUICKLY (1) in, (1) just in the COMMUNITY” (interview Simon, para. 73) at another CWS. After a short membership in Sargas, he indicates that he also has a “home feeling” here: “And after three weeks I have the feeling that I have already met EVERYONE who works here pretty much” (ibid.).5 Despite the aforementioned limitations, the CWS works quite well for new coworkers as a platform for making social contacts (provided they are looking for them)—especially when they are new to the city and generally want to build

3 This

statement is absolute and ignores, for example, that Scott and Sophie did interact with the other attendees during the Community Breakfast mentioned in the quote, where I also met them (see below Sect. 11.2, Scott’s quote on the Community Breakfast). 4 It could also have an influence that, in turn, the interactions between Scott and Sophie towards others signal a certain form of doing being busy as a couple and make them unapproachable, even though they do not intend to. 5 For Simon, this entails the risk that his productivity at work suffers insofar as “you greet EVERYONE you see. (I: Mhm.) And first (1) make small talk” (ibid.).

11.1  Experienced Relationships and Social Interactions

349

a new circle of acquaintances (see Sect. 9.1)—which is particularly evident in the retrospect of established users. This is also the case for coworker Serge, who had not lived in Salmstadt for long when he came to Sargas through a job offer: “[W]hen I moved here, I, I didn’t know anyone in Salmstadt. (1) And so like coming to a coworking space was also like the (1) I don’t know EASIEST way to WORK, of course, but also to, to meet ah people and to find ah FRIENDS. (I: Mhm.) And ehm ya, basically, especially the first year I was here, (1) ah ALL the people also, I was also hanging out, they were people, al/ all I met through, through this coworking space, or friends of friends, but I mean they all/ it all started here (I: Mhm.) And then […] I met people outside of Sargas, of course, but the beginning was like hanging out only for people/ WITH people coming from here.” (Serge, paras. 11 f.)

Although social contacts did not represent a motive for Serge to visit Sargas—for him it was a significant positive aspect that the CWS is not only a work space, but also a space of communitization, to meet other people and build intensive relationships in the form of friendships. As Serge also states in the quote, the CWS is especially important for newcomers to the city, especially in the initial period, when it comes to building up a general circle of friends and acquaintances. This importance decreases over time, insofar as the users then also establish relationships with people in other contexts and at other places (cf. also interview Samir). As was worked out in Chap. 8, CWSs as curated spaces of communitization offer various possibilities of communitization through social interactions. For example, at events or at social meeting points, it is comparatively easy to establish or maintain social contacts with others by means of practices of doing being open. As the example of Sophie has shown, however, encounters with others do not necessarily occur in the setting interaction, if social meeting points or events are not visited. Sharing tables increases the likelihood of social interactions, but the coworkers sitting at the shared tables in front of their laptops can also make themselves unapproachable by doing being busy. For Sargas, there are additional circumstances that are rooted in the structure: Since the CWS has more external visitors due to the public café and the event area on the 4th floor than Tabit, it appears more anonymous. In comparison, the spatial organization of Tabit provides more concrete social meeting points, connected with corresponding rituals such as the communal lunch or playing at the football table, which make it easier for new users to make social contacts. For the Sargas users, the curated community events have a greater importance in this respect (cf. the following Sect. 11.2). So far, the differences in terms of the possibility of building social relationships with other coworkers have been shown. Another aspect is the own drive to actively seek contact with other users. Using the example of Sina, it was already shown at

350

11  Subject Perspective III …

the beginning of this chapter that not all coworkers feel the same need for contact with other coworkers. Thus, the long-established Tabit coworker Tristan makes his lack of interest in building more intensive relationships with other users beyond work-related contacts clear in the interview and also believes to radiate this (cf. interview Tristan, para. 79). Likewise, Tabit new user Tanja states that she focuses on her work when she is in the CWS, due to her part-time job: “[I] work only PART-TIME and it is then a bit like, when I am THERE, I have to do THINGS and I am not necessarily so much on socializing (1) uh the whole time, so like. (1) Therefore. (2) Yes, but I think that also has MORE to do with ME and, and it is not due to a lack of opportunities.” (interview Tanja, para. 94)

Sargas user Sabine, who is irregularly present in the CWS, reports similar things in the interview excerpt while reflecting on lunch: “Well, I mean, it also depends a lot on oneself, so/ (4) Yes. So sometimes, OFTEN I also just eat alone at lunchtime. (1) Although I also (1) could ask someone: ‘Do you feel like joining me?’, somehow. Or I join somebody, I also do that sometimes. But then the person is also often on the computer or doing something. (1) Uh (1) I think, it ISN’T a must, that you build something like that there. I find it pleasant as it is. […] Uh NO, I don’t think, I don’t think that it somehow has to be like/ like, somehow like a FAMILY or something like that. (1) I find it quite pleasant actually, as it is.” (interview Sabine, paras. 127 ff.)

Similarly to Sina based on the reflection of her behavior, Sabine describes—here in relation to lunch without the company of others—that she does not actively seek contact with others by addressing them, but often eats alone. In this case, the contact building is made even more difficult by doing being busy practicing table neighbors (in the Sargas Café or Garden), who instead of starting a conversation with Sabine, often also just interact with their computers.6 In this case, the paradox arises that, even if Sabine “join[s] somebody” with her lunch at a table, she still eats lunch alone.7 Contrary to the family metaphor emphasized by community manager Samuel, she says that Sargas does not have to have the function

6 That

this is not the rule, but that in such situations there are also quite social interactions between the (doing being open practicing) table neighbors and the break is spent together, was shown in Sect. 8.1. 7 Whether this is intentional or not is not entirely clear. But what is clear is that she accepts it: She probably wouldn’t mind, but “it ISN’T a must” that contact is established with the table neighbors.

11.2  Subjective Meaning of and Participation …

351

of a close community like a family for her (where also the common meal is a significant communitizing ritual). This shows that the user attitudes regarding the CWS as a community space are different and can also deviate from the community images represented by the operators (see below Chap. 12). Individually different is also the meaning of CWS events, as will be shown in more detail below.

11.2 Subjective Meaning of and Participation in Events and Activities Already for getting to know the CWS, attending events is an important contact point for potential coworkers (see Sect. 9.2). Likewise, they offer former coworkers a possibility to stay connected with the CWS community (as part of the extended network) beyond the duration of their membership (see interview Samir, para. 73). With regard to the communal atmospheres and the creation and reinforcement of a sense of belonging (together), events (and especially those curated by the operators, which are primarily designed for the users) are significant rituals, as they represent techniques of updating the communal atmosphere (see Sect. 8.3). In the following, events will be examined more closely from the perspective of the users, by highlighting their subjective meaning and the participation in them. In addition, activities or rituals initiated by the coworkers themselves will be addressed. Let us first look at Fig. 11.5 and the corresponding interview excerpt from Sargas user Sandro. Based on a photo of the staircase to the Vibrant Floor showing parts of the weekly schedule with the events, Sandro comments on the range of offers regarding events in the CWS: “Here you have eh also an example of the activities happening here, the different workshops, ehm (1) the (3) PROGRAM that changes every week. (I: Mhm.) Ehm (3) which I also think is a very, very good (1) ahm thing to have this kind of rotations of THEMES, of topics. People coming from the OUTside bringing new ideas, ehm doing their own WORKshops. Sometimes it’s something I’m really INto, sometimes it’s very different to what I’m eh loo/ INterested in, but ehm (2) but curi/ I’m, I’m very often very curious. […] [Y]ou always see the same (1) THREAD, there are themes coming BACK, with the sustainable FOOD and then (1) ehm (1) some of, some, yeah FOOD, some spirituality maybe, some eh COMMUNITY, some actions for refugees, eh LOCAL actions, (1) ehm also connecting with people outside of Salmstadt, some global networks. (I: Mhm.) Eh which is very interesting and very

352

11  Subject Perspective III …

Fig. 11.5   Section of staircase Sargas (Photo: Sandro) ehm, also useful in a way for me, to ehm have access to those things, eh even though I, I’m not going to every workshop and ehm/ But you, (1) you get this (3) CROWD and this people coming over for lunch and ehm, the energy is there, you know, you can feel like people are working on interesting issues and ehm/ (1) Right now I’m more focused on my OWN project, but (1) having this energy around is, is nice.” (interview Sandro, para. 33)

Sandro names the different topics of activities in the CWS, which are repeated over time as a “THREAD”. His interest in the topics varies and he also admits not attending every workshop. Important (or “interesting” or “useful”) to Sandro is the “access” to the events, that is, the possibility of participating in them.8 Sandro does not only adopt a consumer attitude towards the content offered. He also consumes the energetic atmosphere that is created by the co-present event participants and which seems to transfer to him. The reason why he uses the event offer moderately is that he currently prioritizes his work on the project. This implies at the same time that this can also change again. In the user interviews, and here also in the photo task, the events are a recurring subject and related to their community-building function as a platform for

8 This

also shows the non-binding nature of the event offer, in which participation is not mandatory and non-participation is not sanctioned (see in more detail Sect. 13.3.2).

11.2  Subjective Meaning of and Participation …

353

getting to know each other and exchanging, learning (from each other) or professional networking (see Sect. 11.1.2):9 “[Photo Troy] Then there are also (1) PARTIES or events. And uh (1) that is then (2) ALSO good for US [note AB: on behalf of his start-up], because there is, a lot is going on down THERE [note AB: Creative Space]. We can also GO there and get some (1) uh IMPULSES and (1) uh and you t/ when it also happens HERE, it is more LIKELY that you then at least stop by and then you meet other people, and I also find that a good (1) combination in, here in this Tabit, that there are these events. (1) Uh (I: Mhm.) and then you meet, THEN you meet a lot of people and we talk to them somewhere, (1) yes, [about] God and everything. And but OFTEN it is also (1) about business or about, yes, (1) there are also connections coming together.” (interview Troy, para. 104). “[Photo Scott] Well, this one is cool. I mean like, (1) this was one, this represents one of the things that (1) we like about this, which is like the, THIS (1) breakfast, Community Breakfast they have. I don’t know what’s the frequency, but we ha/ we were in this (1) Community Breakfast last week […] And it was really nice. Mhm, getting to know the people. And it was really informal, you know, like EVERYONE sitting [at] the table, so it was not too informal, so that you don’t have to talk to PEOPLE. (Laughing) (I: Mhm.) But (1) informal enough, so that you, you know, like you could just talk to the person next to you and so, and (1) yeah, and that was really nice.” (Scott, interview Scott_Sophie, paras. 210 ff.) “[Photo Simon] THEN there is the COMMUNITY Dinner. (I: Mhm.) Right? Community Dinner and Community BREAKfast, which are nice (2) opportunities, where you can get to know the OTHER coworkers. And we made cider from the apples of the Garden. (1) And you can see how everyone helps nicely AND is in a good mood and cooks something.” (interview Simon, para. 43)

In this case, the interviewed users rate especially those community events for the coworkers curated by the CWS operators positively in both case studies. In the case of Sargas, these are given an even higher value by the users in terms of their community-building character. This can be explained by the fact that Tabit offers more contact points for communitization in everyday CWS life besides the events with the football table, the lunch ritual at the large table in the kitchen area or the coffee machine. In addition, Sargas appears more anonymous due to the larger group of people, which includes not only coworkers but also café visitors and participants of thematic or external events or workshops (despite a similar size in

9 For

the following quotes, the presentation of the photographs is omitted, as several people are depicted in each case, who would have to be anonymized, which in turn would have impaired the expressiveness of the photographs.

354

11  Subject Perspective III …

terms of the CWS places) than Tabit, which makes the events even more significant. The attendance of CWS events varies individually. While some coworkers use the offer in this respect to its extent, others focus on the events organized primarily for the coworkers within the framework of curating community. Again others mainly go to thematic events or visit the events in the CWS here and there. The curated community events were mostly visited at least once by the interviewed users according to their special value. On some occasions, there is also the possibility to get more actively involved, be it as a speaker at the Tabit Lightning Talks or as a volunteer cook at the Sargas Community Dinner, which has also been taken up by some of the interview partners. Sargas user Sina, on the other hand, attaches little importance to attending the curated community events, even though she has sometimes participated in the Community Dinner. The advantage she sees in it, as other coworkers also emphasize, is to get to know other coworkers easily, or as she puts it exaggeratedly, “[W]hen you were there ONCE, then you somehow have new friends right away]” (interview Sina, para. 99). However, she does not set a priority for herself to participate in such events, insofar as she is not looking for friendships in Sargas (cf. Sect. 11.1.1, interview Sina, para. 101). The attendance of events that do not primarily serve to network the coworkers and that are located in the different thematic orientations of the CWSs is strongly interest-driven. For example, user Sina has attended thematic lectures on “FREEganism” and “Upside-down Thinking” as well as a networking event with refugees in Sargas, which she found “really cool”, as she emphasizes three times (interview Sina, paras. 107 ff.). This also because she not only had the opportunity to get in touch with refugees, but also with other coworkers and further participants (ibid., para. 111). With regard to the thematic spectrum of Sargas, the activities in the field of food, sustainability and social engagement seem to be easily accessible for the coworkers. Those users who are not artistically active themselves, on the other hand, often have a harder access to the events in the field of art: “This ARTS thing v/ well uh. I actually have little contact to that. I always see the people, every now and then they do a vernissage or present something, I have no (?idea), I have no connections to that” (interview Stefan, paras. 84 f.). In the case of Tabit, it is mainly the meetups with a content focus on ICT topics that some of the interviewed coworkers regularly attend and that others cannot relate to (cf. also interview excerpt with Tamara, para. 67 in the following paragraph).

11.2  Subjective Meaning of and Participation …

355

Not all coworkers focus on attending events. In this respect, the attitudes of the Tabit coworkers Tristan and Tamara are characteristic, who have hardly participated in Tabit events so far: “[I] am here all DAY. And then (1) I have of course a FITNESS program and (1) uh um RELATIONSHIP of course and uh and social obligations and friends and so on. And (1) I have little time for the (1) events. And if they are VERY, VERY close to my business, (1) then yes. But (3) no, actually not. […] [I] was at TWO events. (I: Mhm.) (1) But they have one every week, so I think I missed 50.” (interview Tristan, paras. 75 ff.) “The problem is, uh (1) I would have the time on the weekend, and on the weekend there are usually rarely events (laughs). (I: Mhm.) During the WEEK uh it is like this: I am very important to myself and I need SPORT a little for balance, it is not MUCH, but I have a little TWO fixed evenings, where, where I want to do sports, and sometime I also have to do my laundry and so on, that belongs to it too. And by THAT it allows me (1) YES, uh, (1) is (?a bit) difficult. Uh, I have only managed to go to an event in the evening twice in that sense, I think. (1) Uh but tendentially I find it urCOOL, so if it is then IT-related events, I understand then STATION. (I: Mhm.) Uh (1) it always depends on the topic and (1) I, what I do not like is a little the uh (1) if it is just a little INformative, that brings me like nothing, I have the feeling. If, then I go then maybe ONLY for networking, because I have the feeling, I could meet someone, uh, you can meet interesting people. (1) Uh yes, so it is a little (2) I have not used it enough in that sense. (1) (I: Mhm.) But I appreciate that it [that] exists.” (interview Tamara, paras. 66 f.)

Both emphasize that their free time is reserved for other areas of everyday life, such as sports, relationships, friends or laundry, so that there is no time left to attend CWS events. And if, then they should be “business”-related (in the case of Tristan) or thematically appealing and have “networking” potential (in the case of Tamara). Sandro’s argument at the beginning of this chapter is along similar lines, with the difference that he does not give higher priority to his private life outside the CWS, but to the area of work, when he emphasizes to focus more on his own project than to attend events. Besides such fundamental attitudes, which assign a low value to attending the CWS events, or the lack of interest in certain events, participation fees can also be a deterrent. In addition, poor communication of the event offer by the CWS operators to the coworkers makes participation difficult, as user Serge describes for Sargas in relation to those events that are not carried out within the framework of curating the CWS community (cf. interview Serge, para. 106). But also a lack of initiative on the part of the users and, associated with this, the time to inform themselves about event announcements in advance, lead to them being missed

356

11  Subject Perspective III …

(cf. interview Till, para. 108). Moreover, it happens with those people who are not present full-time in the CWS that they are not in the CWS on the day of the event (cf. interview Sabine, para. 52) or events in Sargas also take place on weekends, for which the coworkers do not come to the CWS all the way10. This shows that the users mainly take advantage of offers when they are there anyway. Thus, a significant added value of using CWSs lies in being able to attend interesting events spontaneously and without additional effort at the same place while “passing by” (cf. interviews Troy, para. 106 and Stefan, para. 84), which is also repeatedly emphasized in the user interviews. In addition to external or operator-organized events, activities and rituals initiated by the coworkers themselves are also held. In the case of Tabit, for example, Tamara’s start-up organizes a lunch event in the Creative Space to vote for an online competition11, in which the start-up participates. At this, they receive “great support” from the participating coworkers, as Tamara states, although she limits that help, according to her experience, is not simply provided by the other coworkers, but has to be actively demanded. (cf. interview Tamara, paras. 26 ff., cf. Sect. 11.1.2). Another example is the group that meets for running during the lunch break. User Timo, who is also a member of the running group, emphasizes the accessibility and openness towards others as basic principles of Tabit and its culture12: “There are also people who do some SPORT over lunch or something. And that is ALSO an offer that I use, that I/ So it is then somehow often (not ADVERTISED) or something, that is then really, you see that some people go JOGGING and then you ask: ‘Hey, guys, can I join you? Uh, I would also like to go jogging once a week.’ And that is also something that makes Tabit for me, that, if now someone does something and you like it, then you ask ‘Hey, can I join in?’ And uh I have never experienced that someone said: ‘NO, GO AWAY, THIS IS ONLY mine.’ but/ and then you do it toGETHER and there are two people that are NEW again. And uh (1) that has for me actually to do with the OPENNESS of the culture of Tabit, now like: ‘YES, SURE, look, we do it LIKE THIS. If you also want, then, then DO.’ (interview Timo, paras. 110 ff.)

10 Or

in the reverse case, Tamara, as described in the above interview excerpt, would only have time on weekends to attend events. However, there are usually no events in Tabit then. 11 The lunch event is another example of the fact that the analog-material space plays an important role despite the competition in the virtual space: For the competition, the coworkers came together in the Creative Space, even though they could have voted online. 12 Which is also a principle of coworking in general, insofar as openness and accessibility are core values of the global coworking movement.

11.2  Subjective Meaning of and Participation …

357

Even in the case of Sargas, there are community-building activities that were initiated by coworkers. For example, coworker Serge tells me that the community dinner, according to his memory, emerged from the initiative of the coworkers (cf. interview Serge, para. 122). In the interview, user Stefan reports about the daily coffee break with two other (male) coworkers, who, like him, mainly work in the Silent Floor: ”Stefan: (Figure11.6) [T]his is the COFFEE. This is simply the, the photo of the cup with my daily COFFEE. […] I usually take the coffee with me, (1) in the MORNING with/ also with colleagues. This is already a ritual, that one then together at TEN or something like that, (I: Mhm.) after the/ (1) the, the Café opens, it only opens at ten, then one drinks somehow a cup of coffee together. I: So colleagues in the sense of other coworkers then //(inc.)//? Stefan: //Right,// colleagues of coworkers. So Severin, who sits next to me, and uh Stan, there is still/ We actually always go at quarter past ten somehow to drink coffee, you can also gladly join (laughing) us. I: Mhm. (3) As a break RITUAL. Stefan: Exactly. (I: Mhm.) And after lunch usually again.“ (interview Stefan, paras. 35 ff.)

The morning coffee break and the one after lunch are typical break rituals that take place in conventional offices. Stefan aptly calls the other two coworkers also accordingly ”colleagues“, insofar as they take on the function of substitute colleagues here (cf. Sect. 11.1).

Fig. 11.6   Detailed photo of coffee cup in the Sargas Café (Photo: Stefan)

358

11  Subject Perspective III …

11.3 User Types II: Work-Focused and CommunityOriented All coworkers have in common that they visit the CWS because of its primary core function as a workspace. With regard to the second core function as a space of communitization, the meanings attributed by the users differ. In terms of the social relations and interactions sought in the CWS and the experienced belonging to the CWS community, two typical positions can be identified, within which the users can be located. Here too, as already with the user types in Sect. 10.4, the separation or mixing of work and non-work plays a role again, this time with regard to the social relations. While the user type of the work-focused strives for a focus on their own work in the CWS and is less interested in building social relations or especially private relations and interactions, work and private life mix in terms of social relations and interactions in the CWS for the community-oriented. In other words: The CWS is primarily a space of work for both user types. While work-focused users use the CWS instrumentally also with regard to social relations and interactions, community-oriented users appreciate the CWS also as a space of communitization. Below, both user types and their characteristics are explained in more detail.

11.3.1 Work-Focused ”AND in the end you are also here for work, so I don’t have time to socialize all the time.“ (interview Till, para. 100)

For the work-focused, the CWS is primarily the place where they do their work. This is done out of the motivation to separate work and private life in terms of social relations, or because they are part-time in the CWS and want or have to use it as a workspace for the limited time to get their work done. In this respect, work-focused users are not interested in building deeper social contacts: ”I also have no great interest in seeking closer contact to many people. (1) (I: Mhm.) And uh, (1) I think I also radiate that, and (1) that’s why I’m also left alone. I’m not someone (1) who is constantly visited by everyone. (1) I don’t need that either, so. (1) (I: Mhm.) (1) It’s just for ME, I only NEED the Tabit place very marginally as a place of exchange with other people. (1) It d/ (1) It uh happens that someone uh appears, who is introduced to me by Ted (1) as an interesting entrepreneur, because he works in the are/ possibly in the same area as me, or in a similar area as me. (I: Mhm.) Then there is of course VERY great interest from me to uh TALK and to

11.3  User Types II: Work-Focused and Community-Oriented

359

LOOK, what one could POSSIBLY do. But (1) i/ I/ That, there is the, there the HURDLE is pretty high. So (1) uh (1) JUST to know that you also do something here and, and, and to think about whether you could do sports together, I don’t need that. So that (1) is al/ is not PART of my mission.“ (interview Tristan, para. 79)

Like Tristan, work-focused people seek less actively for social relationships in the CWS, or if they seek contact, it is mainly about instrumental relationships in the professional context.13 They strive for a separation of work and private life with regard to the social relationships in the CWS. Accordingly, their interactions with the other users are also mainly of a professional nature. For these users, maintaining superficial relationships that hardly go beyond small talk and, if so, have a functional character is typical. Events have a low priority for work-focused people and are rarely attended by them. If they do participate, then it is useful for them, either by being workrelated and thematically relevant or by offering the opportunity to establish interesting professional contacts. Internal community networking events, on the other hand, have little value for the work-focused people. For work-focused people, it is central to feel in a work environment in order to work when visiting a CWS. The co-present other users in the CWS are appreciated by the work-focused people in this respect as part of the communicative atmosphere, which they need to work. However, they do not necessarily want to interact with them: ”So I do need this, this connection and just people around me. So whether I now SEEK or USE this contact is another question, but I somehow have to get out of HOME, I need a different work environment“ (interview Sina, para. 11). In this respect, some work-focused people also like to place themselves in the spaces for interaction.14 Sargas user Sina, on the other hand, positions herself near familiar others in the Silent Floor, although she does not want to interact with them. The coworkers she knows by sight are important elements of her work space and thus of a familiar atmosphere that supports Sina in her work.

13 However,

this does not mean that they do not build private relationships with other users or members of the operating team. Accidentally and supported by regular attendance over a longer period of time, friendships can also develop, although these are not forced by the users (as the case of Tristan, for example, proves). 14 As this shows, these user types cannot be equated with those user types in relation to the development of the spaces as work spaces (Section 10.4): Just because users like to work in a lively, social atmosphere does not mean that they also seek contact with other users. Conversely, there are community-oriented people who seek a quiet, concentrated work atmosphere for their everyday work.

360

11  Subject Perspective III …

Just as work-focused people appreciate the co-present others (as part of the work atmosphere) without necessarily interacting with them, they also appreciate the various events in the CWS without necessarily attending them. They see them more as an offer from the CWS that they can use when needed. From a social point of view, the work-focused people thus take a consumer attitude and, in a pointed way, consume the atmosphere of the community without becoming active themselves. Belonging to the CWS community is typically thematized by them in this respect in the role of a ”passive member“ of the community.

11.3.2 Community-Oriented ”I mean, I’m SOMEHOW a part of THIS, so (1) ehm/ A FEW of the people who founded it, eh are friends of mine. (I: Mhm.) So I’m sure that ANYHOW I will stay connected with […].“ (interview Samir, para. 73)

On the other hand, there are the community-oriented, for whom both core functions of the CWS are important: For them, the CWS is not only a workspace, but also a space of communitization, to establish and expand (private and professional) social relationships. Among the interviewed users of Tabit as well as among those of Sargas, community-oriented people can be identified, whereby it should be noted that among the users of Sargas more characteristic cases can be found, insofar as there were also people who were new to the city when they entered the CWS and were looking for more social contacts. For the community-oriented users, it is characteristic that the CWS ”community“ has a corresponding value for them. These people actively seek contact with other users, which was also a motive for some of them to visit the CWS. They welcome the development of more intensive private relationships. Also, the social interactions with other people in the CWS are not exclusively work-related and functional, but also of a private nature. Community-oriented people practice more of doing being open to build social relationships. The social meeting points in the CWS and the curated community networking events have a significant value for the community-oriented people, to get in touch with other coworkers and are visited by them accordingly regularly. They use other event offers depending on their interests. Community-oriented people experience a strong sense of belonging to the CWS, which is nourished by the participation in activities and events and the active development of social relationships. Their identification with the CWS community is accordingly high. For established community-oriented people, the

11.3  User Types II: Work-Focused and Community-Oriented

361

CWS even changes from a workspace to a cozy, family home, as the long-established Sargas user Serge experiences: ”It’s cozy, is familiar eh, (1) I don’t know if this is like the, the environment of the coworking space or just the FACT that I’m part of the family, I mean, you know like/ Because I mean I know like the people working at the bar, then I know the managers, I know MANY coworkers, so basically (1) I feel at HOME, so and maybe JUST, (1) I just says/ I just say that it’s familiar, just because it’s/ I mean I’ve been working here since two years. So probably if I c/ worked in another coworking space, and after two years I wou/ I would say the SAME just because I’M I mean CONNECTED to the place, and not because like the place is like familiar in absolute ah, ah TERMS, let’s say.“ (interview Serge, para. 151)

After two years of membership, Serge knows the people of Sargas and feels connected to the place. He admits, however, that the feeling of familiarity has less to do with Sargas itself as a CWS, but rather with the duration of his affiliation. The powerful image of the CWS as a home and the metaphor of the family15 show particularly clearly how the boundaries between work and private life blur for community-oriented people, in terms of the social relationships and interactions in the CWS and the experience of the CWS community. This is not perceived negatively by the coworkers concerned. Although there is a risk that one’s own (concentrated) work may suffer from this mixing of work and private life, as new user Simon initially anticipated in the interview with reference to the family atmosphere of Sargas (cf. interview Simon, para. 9). If work, as in Simon’s case, is understood as identity-forming and as a means of individual self-realization16 and occupies a large part of life, it can be quite ”PLEASANT [that] it feels so familiar“17, as Simon has found out after almost three weeks of membership in

15 Here,

the image of the family stands for feelings of belonging, familiarity and wellbeing. At the same time, this image implies an implicit obligation to contribute something to the community as part of the family. It is the prototype of the traditional community in Tönnies’ understanding (cf. Sect. 3.5.1). 16 Here, normative subjectification of work within the framework of the change of work values is expressed (cf. Sect. 2.1.4). Such an understanding of work is also found among work-focused people. 17 Simon speaks of the CWS atmosphere as feeling familiar and not being familiar. This underlines that he experiences the familiar atmosphere as created by the operators (”[I] think it is also very/ well quite (2) (clicks his tongue) erm explicitly WANTED, that the atmosphere is familiar.“ (interview Simon, para. 9)) and indicates that his identification with the CWS is not as strong as that of long-established community-oriented people (he also speaks of a ”feeling of home“ and not of home at another point (cf. ibid., para. 73)).

362

11  Subject Perspective III …

Sargas. It should be critically noted, however, that the community-oriented people are also the group that is most affected by the risk of exploitation through unpaid services disguised as favors.

11.4 Intermediate Conclusion: The Subjective Development of the Spaces of Communitization In this chapter, it was elaborated that the social relations in the CWS differ in terms of their qualities and range in their intensity from indefinite others to familiar faces, professional contacts, substitute or real colleagues, and friendships. Compared to the employees of a conventional company, relations and interactions among coworkers are less inevitable and rather voluntary and self-chosen, whereby interactions and exchange are facilitated by curating. Although exchange and collaboration are of particular importance as social building blocks of the coworking concept, it became clear that not all coworkers interact and build deeper relationships equally—either first, that they are not looking for them, or second, that they are looking for them, but their expectations are not met, or third, that there are no opportunities for collaboration in the CWS due to their specific professional background. Thus, especially in the Sargas user interviews, it is reported that collaboration among users takes place especially in relation to certain areas (web development, graphic design, etc.) (cf. ”Good-Partners Configuration“ in Spinuzzi 2012). In this regard, interview partners also express the wish to learn more about the other coworkers, especially in relation to their work activity and their professional background (cf. Sect. 13.2.1). The events of the CWS are also attended to a different extent by the coworkers, as we have seen. Although the subjective importance of the curated community networking events is high among the users, there are also coworkers who do not or hardly participate. The conclusion of this chapter was made by establishing two user types: community-oriented, who seek work and community with the use of the CWS; and work-focused, who visit the CWS for work in community. The characteristics of the two user types are summarized and contrasted in Table 11.1. In addition, this chapter has shown that curators are important for creating social relationships between the coworkers. However, these mediators do not necessarily have to be members of the operating team or community managers in particular, but can also be other users. Moreover, it is striking that the operators not only connect coworkers with each other in the context of social curating, but are also often involved in the collaboration themselves and benefit from it. Whether the operators receive frequent orders from the coworkers, as in the case of Tabit,

11.4  Intermediate Conclusion: The Subjective Development …

363

Table 11.1   The significance of the CWS as a community space: user types. (Own illustration)

Work-focused

Community-oriented

Desired separation / mixing of work and non-work in relation to social relations and interactions

Separation: CWS as a space Mixing: CWS is not only of work a space of work, but also a communal space, where professional and private relations and interactions mix

Desired social relations and interactions in the CWS

• Professional/instrumental • Professional/instrumental • Private relations may arise, as well as private  elations to other coworkbut are not actively sought • R ers are actively sought

Participation in events

•E  vents related to the CWS • Participation has a low community are of special overall priority, few visits • If events are attended, then importance, are also attended work-focused or themati•D  epending on interest, cally relevant other events are also par• Opportunity for profesticipated in sional networking

Experienced sense of belong- • Sense of belonging is con- • Strong sense of belonging, identification with CWS sumed through communal ing to the CWS community community atmosphere • Sense of belonging to the • Coworkers experience CWS community as home themselves as passive members of the CWS com- or family • Sense of belonging is munity nourished by active participation in activities and events

or whether the coworkers perform services of friendship for the operators, which they would normally have had to pay for as a service, as in the case of Sargas. This is hardly problematized in the user interviews, although in the latter case there is a risk of unpaid exploitation of labor (see in detail Sect. 13.2.1). Subsequently, three typical conceptions of the experienced social structures of the CWS that users have of the CWS are presented: The self-organized community, the curated community, and the customer service provider relationship. While work-focused users tend to adopt the image of the CWS as a service or curated community, community-oriented users tend to use the image of the self-organized community.

Subject Perspective IV: Views On the Social Formations of the Coworking Space

12

In the course of the analysis of the user interviews, not only typical user groups emerged with regard to the development of the CWSs as spaces of work and communitization, but also typical images with regard to the experienced forms of the social formations of the CWS. Two forms appear contradictory at first glance due to their different logics: on the one hand, self-organized communitization, in which all CWS members, operators and users alike, contribute something to the functioning of the CWS. On the other hand, societizaton, whereby the relationship between coworkers and operators is understood as a customer service provider relationship. In addition, a third form can be found, namely that of guided communitization, in which, unlike self-organized communitization, the members of the operating team are assigned a special status and the curating of community is taken into account. Distinguishing from the image of the customer service provider relationship, the CWS is still understood as a community here. Sargas user Stefan mentions all three aspects in the following quote, when he compares Sargas with another CWS, Y-Space, and corporate coworking (see Sect. 2.2.4) in general: “[I] looked at another coworking space […] and there it was totally self-managed. (1) And I found that a bit/ That, that was/ had such a shared apartment character and was so (1) uh/ Yes, that was already/ Well, I mean, that’s not a hundred percent super well organized here either, so there are always/ You always have things where it (1) h=HANGS and where something is not perfect. But you notice, here This chapter was published in slightly modified form in Bernhardt (2021). Revised with kind permission of Springer Nature Customer Service Centre GmbH: Springer, Coworking as Revolution of the Work World. From Corporate Coworking to Workation, edited by S. Werther, ©Springer 2021. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 A. Bernhardt, Coworking Atmospheres, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41193-0_12

365

366

12  Subject Perspective IV: Views On the Social Formations …

is the spirit of a (1) of a say, a higher-level organizer somehow behind it, whom you can address, who also takes responsibility. (I: Mhm.) And at this Y-Space, that was more hippie commune like. (1) And (1) there I looked at the kitchen, that was a bit/ There I would have liked/ There you have to cook something yourself, that was a bit DIRTY and the/ the whole thing, it was somehow/ That/ Well, that was TOO MUCH (1) uh self-organized for me. I don’t want that either. So I br/ I need a bit/ I don’t want this whole corporate thing, that, that we talked about earlier over coffee, that you somehow have corporate coworking, where everything is just overdesigned and then only the reflection of a coworking is actually there. (I: Mhm.) (clicks his tongue) But I don’t want the other extreme either, such a, such a COMMUNE. But something like it is here, so already organized and uh, it is also a, it is also a, a profit-oriented company, so Sargas, they also want to, say, (1) at least pay their people or something. No, that should/ There is also real money flowing. Uh, that’s okay like that. So the uh (1) it also needs a bit, to also ensure some organization somehow.” (interview Stefan, paras. 93 ff.)

Thus, Stefan cites two extremes between which he positions Sargas: on the one hand, the “totally self-managed”, “hippie commune like” Y-Space with “shared apartment character”, which is “TOO MUCH (1) uh self-organized” for him and on the other hand, the “overdesigned” “corporate coworking”, which is not about coworking itself, but rather about picking up on the coworking aesthetic and which he also does not like. Between these extremes of corporate coworking as “top-down coworking” (cf. field notes on the interview with Stefan) and the self-organized commune (as “bottom-up coworking”1) Stefan positions Sargas in between as a curated communitization. In doing so, it takes on the function of a meta-organization, which nevertheless also has a business model as a “profitoriented company”. The following will examine in more detail the three sketched typical forms of social formations that are experienced in the CWS context—selforganized communitization, guided communitization and the customer service provider relationship.

12.1 The True Coworking: The Coworking Space As a Self-Organized Communitization “Yes, in Tabit it is also a bit like in a shared apartment or something.” (interview Tanja, para. 57)

1 Cf.

the distinction between top-down and bottom-up organized CWSs (Sect. 2.2.4).

12.1  The True Coworking: The Coworking Space …

367

Fig. 12.1   Photo sink kitchen area Tabit Creative Space (Photo: Till)

On the one hand, in the user interviews, and here especially in the case of Tabit2, the image of the self-organized communitization is repeatedly emphasized. The social formation in the CWS represents in this image a community of place as well as of spirit (cf. Tönnies 1963). This is described as a “shared apartment” (cf. among others interview Tanja, para. 57, Thorsten, para. 119), a “community of convenience” (cf. among others interview Till, para. 56, Simon, para. 97) or a “working group” (interview Troy, para. 132). Associated with this is the observation that there are few or hardly any rules in the CWS and also “no centTRAL authority”, as Tabit user Till illustrates with the example of washing dishes (cf. Fig. 12.1): “That is another important point, that the people here wash up and SHOULD and have to. (1) Not everyone does it, but it works/ you/ In TABIT it is also important that it actually works, if everyone/ (2) Uh there is no cenTRAL authority, which actually also is not (?needed), like in the office, where somehow someone then always writes such an email and says: ‘Guys, K, K, K (clicks his tongue three

2 In

this context, it can be assumed that the image of the self-organized communitization is more likely to emerge in the context of smaller CWSs with a limited number of members. As already noted elsewhere, Sargas also has the café guests and participants of the art programs or workshops, which makes the CWS appear more anonymous than Tabit (but still less anonymous than, for example, Z-Space) (cf. interview Sina, para. 13, Sect. 9.2).

368

12  Subject Perspective IV: Views On the Social Formations …

times)’, (1) but uh you are dependent, actually everyone, who participates, now also cares a little bit about the, about, about, about the COMMUNITY. Like it is with all/ with ALL communities of purpose. (I: Mhm.) I think, such a Tabit is at the end of the day a community of PURPOSE of LIKE-minded people, who are all looking for something THERE, otherwise they would all work at home. In such a community of purpose I think everyone somehow has to care about, about, about the OTHERS or also, what he leaves behind and WHO then has to clean up at the end, because everyone is somehow EQUAL and there is somehow NO cleaning lady, who does that. And therefore uh, uh that is a bit the symBOL IMAGE. It is, works really well also, that’s why it is not packed with, with garbage or dishes. Uh symbol for/ for that, that Tabit works, if ALL here pull together and if you also have people, who share a little bit these VALUES. And then you don’t have one, who just comes in the morning, thinks, because he pays 30 euros or 30 francs per day, that he then can behave like a pig and, and, and someone does the service, for which he spent the money, who then cleans up behind him. (I: Mhm.) That is actually not what you want in Tabit. Which, hm, [we] until now but also probably have not had yet.” (interview Till, para. 56)

This is how Till sums up Tabit as a hierarchy-less “community of PURPOSE of LIKE-minded people”, where everyone is “somehow EQUAL”, shares similar values and, metaphorically speaking, “pulls together”. In contrast, he introduces the attitude of the customer who views coworking as a service, for which he pays and which also legitimizes him to behave “like a pig”, insofar as he expects in return that someone cleans up behind him (cf. the following picture: The Commodity Coworking). In the image of the self-organized communitization, there are few formal rules. Rather, there is a “CODE of HONOR, that you behave well” (interview Thorsten, para. 119) and the implicit rules of interaction are accordingly: “Do it the way the others do it” (interview Theo, para. 310), “Consideration for others, that is, for/ with each other” interview Sina, para. 139), “Be KIND to PEOPLE” (interview Serge, para. 149) or “common sense” (cf. among others interviews Thomas, para. 280, Timo, para. 105, Tarek, para. 239). The spaces and the lived habit dictate how to behave. In this respect, the effect of the different work settings and the associated atmospheres plays an important role, as they steer the behavior, as user Tarek explains for Tabit: “[I]t somehow also means ‘common sense’. So up here [note AB: Classic Office] you don’t SHOUT around, or. (Laughs.) (I: (laughing) Hm.) (2) Or ma/ make somehow LOUD music or something. (I: Mhm.) (2) now u/ downstairs [note AB: Creative Space] that is still MORE tolerated maybe, or, if you somehow have a video running or have a, a, a, (1) a TELCO with someone and talk LOUDLY, that doesn’t bother anyone downstairs, because it simply, (2) yes, is/ it has also become customary, that it is like that.” (interview Tarek, para. 239)

12.1  The True Coworking: The Coworking Space …

369

In the context of the shared apartment metaphor, which is associated with the image of self-organization, the members of the CWS are seen as equal “flatmates” (interview Simon, para. 97): Operators and coworkers alike contribute to everyday CWS life. Thus, the self-organized communitization is more or less hierarchy-free: “Basically we are friends, we are not (1) ah managers and workers, we are friends, part of this community.” (interview Serge, para. 110). If everyone contributes, then the role of the members of the operating team in everyday CWS life has no special status. They are equal or particularly active members as CWS members. In the self-organized shared apartment, the importance of the community manageris comparatively low3. He or she is assigned mainly administrative tasks and visible services, such as “refrigerator replenishment” (interview Thorsten, para. 119) and “event organization” (ibid.) or the “onboarding” of new coworkers (ibid., para. 123). The community manager is the contact person for the coworkers, although his or her role is interchangeable: “You need s/ someone to address when you have some questions. (I: Mhm.) You need to pay or when you need to change the invoice or (1) when you need to ask for the keys. (2) Ya, you need some contact. […] NOW it’s Samuel, but before there it was Samuel and another one and there were/ In the beginning there were two or three people that/ t/ two or three persons at the same time. (I: Mhm.) (2) It was, it was the same, I think.” (interview Sebastian_2, paras. 38 f.)

Despite self-organized communitization, the need is recognized that someone is responsible for the “household” (interview Theo, line 268), because with pure self-organization “it would partly deteriorate” (ibid., cf. also Stefan’s remarks on Y-Space above). In contrast, Till emphasizes the pure self-organization of the CWS in the opening quote using the example of washing up4. In his perception, there is “NO cleaning lady”. He is not aware that this does not correspond to reality and that a cleaning person regularly comes to Tabit and that tidying up is also

3 This

is especially striking in the case of Tabit, which also has to do with the formal role of the community manager Tom in the organization as an intern. Thus, not all Tabit coworkers perceive him in his role as a contact person and instead address other members of the operating team who have been there longer and whom they know better. 4 By the way, Till cannot spontaneously name the community manager by his first name in the interview and instead calls him ”secretary“, with whom he ”always chats a bit“ (interview Till, line 90 f.).

370

12  Subject Perspective IV: Views On the Social Formations …

part of the tasks of the community manager Tom5 (cf. Sect. 13.3.2). Till rather consumes the feeling of belonging as a member of a community of purpose, whereby he acts as a work-focused person from a customer role.6 Moreover, it should be noted that in everyday CWS life—as it is also characteristic for shared apartments, not everything runs smoothly and, for example, dishes can still pile up, as Sect. 13.2.2 will show.

12.2 The Commodity Coworking: The Coworking Space As a Service Provider “So now I’m more like just a service recipient, that’s what I pay for.” (interview Sina, line 121)

On the other hand, there is the image of the CWS as a service company, in which the customer service provider relationship is crucial and the CWS is not seen as a communitization, but as a social formation of societization. Although none of the interviewed coworkers presents the CWS exclusively in this way, aspects of it appear repeatedly in the interviews. This is most evident in the involuntary Tabit user Tristan’s dissatisfaction with the service of the CWS.7 The following are two example passages from a longer narrative that follows the question “And apart from that?” in relation to the mood in the CWS:

5 In

this regard, community manager Tom describes a broad range of tasks in the interview: “Uh (1) yes, many, everything. Um (I: (Laughs.)) from (Laughs.) filling up coffee, disposing of waste to newsletter, social media, website. (1) Uh planning events, communication, organization. (1) As far as POSSIBLE. (1) (clicks his tongue.) Uh very diverse. (1) (I: Mhm.) Ordering drinks. Um (1) what else is there? (1) These events, tomorrow/ uh organizing food. Uh CONNECTING people, as far as possible, or if possible. Um (2) and, and trying to (1) PROMOTE the community, actually as a whole. And also to CAPTURE the individuals (1) and then to integrate them, into the whole” (interview Tom, line 19). He first names administrative tasks and then the curatorial ones. 6 Within the framework of the user typology, Till can be classified as work-focused. In the interview, he mainly refers to the self-organized communitization when he characterizes the social structure of the CWS. This example shows that the user type cannot be inferred from the subjectively experienced image of the CWS. 7 Tristan nevertheless also draws on the image of the self-organized traditional communitization in the interview, which in his opinion does not come into play in Tabit, because this can only arise in his understanding through longer joint co-presence and joint activities (cf. interview Tristan, para. 81).

12.2  The Commodity Coworking: The Coworking Space …

371

“And then there is also this expectation, (1) yes, if I PAY for something, and that is not even so LITTLE at the moment, then there are also just things, where I think like, could all be a bit nicer, a bit neater, a bit more tidy, a bit more performance, a better PRINTER that always works, where I don’t have to pay extra. Uh better TEA kitchen, better offer, better information policy between me and the service provider. (1) So these newsletters, that I get once a week, the information in it is actually totally WORTHLESS for me.” (interview Tristan, para. 9)

“And then also a bit more service. There I would/ I would have expected MUCH MORE/ could that much more/ would be so/ much more TACTILE for me than this, (2) this total GRAY area, in which we are here right now. Yes. So (1) and that, and/ (1) I also have higher expectations maybe of, (1) of something, that I (1) do NOT even PAY MYSELF, okay, I admit, I/ Uh I am just/ My COMPANY pays that for me. (I: Mhm.) But (I: (Coughs.)) I still think entrepreneurially and think like: For that, that i/ that WE here/ that now our BUDGET is part of it and is spent for that, that I am here, (1) a little bit too little comes BACK.” (interview Tristan, para. 10)

Tristan sees himself in the role of a paying customer, although he admits in the second quote that his employer actually pays the CWS membership. In this respect, he wishes for more “service” as a return for the expenses, or that something “comes back”. In the first quote, he gives concrete examples of this. Characteristic for this social formation is that the operators are understood as service providers who offer coworking as a professional service. The coworkers take on the role of customers or those as “service recipients” (interview Sina, para. 121), who pay for the service within the framework of their membership and in this respect also make demands on the fulfillment of the service. The service is primarily understood as providing work spaces and associated professional services. In this respect, as the excerpts from the interview with Tristan show, there is room for improvement from the user’s perspective (see Sect. 13.1.1). The service also includes the communication or, as Tristan puts it, the “information policy” of the CWS as well as the clear definition, communication and monitoring of compliance with rules, which is also seen in the responsibility of the operators.8 The communal atmosphere is in this conception an addition to the primary service of work space, or as Sargas user Stefan puts it:

8 For

example, Tristan finds that the rules of the work setting of the Classic Office were not clearly communicated by the operators and demands clearer guidelines in this respect. He also sees the operators in the responsibility to sanction behavior that deviates from the rules (see Sect. 13.1.1).

372

12  Subject Perspective IV: Views On the Social Formations …

“It [note AB: Sargas] is ultimately the provider of a workplace at cost-effective conditions. (1) Point. First of all. And THEN, what makes the difference [note AB: to other CWSs], these are the different pluses. So, this Café, (1) the Garden, (I: Mhm.) the community, uh (1) possibly also the networks. […] Uh, so for me Sargas is really provider of a (1) nice, uh workplace at relatively cheap conditions (1) and uh the ambiance.” (interview Stefan, para. 97).

From this point of view, the community is one of the “pluses” of the CWS and can be consumed as part of the “ambiance” as a feeling.

12.3 Curated Coworking: The Coworking Space As Guided Communitization “So the community manager, (1) that is practically the janitor, and but also big BROTHER (1) of all coworkers.” (interview Simon, para. 115)

As already became clear from the quote by Sargas user Stefan that opened Chap. 12, in which the CWS was compared with the self-organized Y-Space and corporate coworking, for him Sargas is not only a service provider, but also a curated communitization, in which the “spirit of a[n] […] overarching organizer somehow behind it, whom you can address, who also takes responsibility” (interview Stefan, para. 95) is noticeable. The picture of the guided or curated communitization, which is drawn more strongly by the interviewed users in the case of Sargas, can be situated between the self-organized communitization on the one hand and the customer service provider relationship on the other hand. In this context, the members of the operating team have a more prominent position than in the self-organized communitization: There are central persons of the operating team who have a special status in relation to the functioning of the CWS, insofar as they curate the CWS as a work and community space and cultivate the community (cf. interview Serge, para. 187). In this regard, Tabit user Thorsten, as already explained, has the feeling that the CWS community is a self-organized one. However, he assigns a special role to the founding members of Tabit: “[T]here are of course certain people, especially FOUNDERS, who actually carry a large part of it, you have the feeling (1) where most people actually came in through them and (1) and [who] actually support it, and also (3) yes like so bring in (1) CULTURE in principle, how it/ how it works there, or, the coexistence and so on.” (interview Thorsten, para. 123)

12.3  The Curated Coworking: The Coworking Space …

373

As part of curating the CWS, the founding members set the culture and the norms of everyday coexistence. They also engage in the planning and development of the new CWS, where Thorsten sees little involvement for the coworkers, as he further explains (cf. ibid.). Although the transitions from self-organized to curated communitization are fluid and common sense is also important for the everyday functioning of the CWS in this image, there the operators—in contrast to the self-organized communitization, as Till describes it—represent such a “cenTRAL authority” (interview Till, para. 56). Less strongly and more aptly formulated (insofar as it is not about power relations here) the peculiarity in the role of the operators lies in the fact that they act as curators of the work and community spaces and organize, arrange and promote them as such. In this regard, Tabit coworker Tamara assigns the role of the “Tätschmeister [master of ceremonies] of TABIT” to the community manager Tom, who “sees to it, […] that everything works and RUNS smoothly” (interview Tamara, para. 23).9 Later in the interview, she comes back to the role of rules and that of the operating team and again emphasizes the importance of the Tätschmeister, who “announces certain rules” and explains: “I think (1) everyone is very busy with THEMSELVES, with their own/ with their work. And because of THAT I think you have to push the people, the people also/ you have to push them a little and say: ‘Hey, uh (1) how about cleaning up the kitchen or whatever.‘ ‘Wash up your CUPS.‘ (1) Uh, I think there/ that is really important, that there is really someone who keeps (1) their eyes open and HAS TO PUSH the people a little, unfortunately.” (interview Tamara, para. 87)

The operators as masters of ceremonies are responsible for the rules and their compliance as well as for the mobilization of the users to participate in the CWS community, the associated events and social interactions. Tamara presents the coworkers as passive actors who can be mobilized by the operators, who would otherwise remain in the role of consumers or customers, who remained focused on themselves and their work, “when everything is done for you” (ibid.). In doing so, she denies the users the role of active members of the self-organized communitization, who “come by themselves” and “help and do something” (ibid.), from which she does not exclude herself:

9 Tätschmeister

is a Swiss German word and means something like master of ceremonies or a person who pulls the strings (Sasse 2015, p. 157).

374

12  Subject Perspective IV: Views On the Social Formations …

“So you know, I’m not different either. I also/ Um, if I were asked now: ‘Hey, we still need helpers for an event there and THERE.’ I’m also the one who prefers to go to events rather than do something. And, if someone then comes to ME and says: ‘Hey, can you support us with this and that?’ And then, then I do it.” (interview Tamara, para. 87)

Similarly, Sargas user Sina concludes that it takes “encouragement” from the Sargas staff: “So I mean, there IS a lot of organization going on, I think that’s cool. For example, the community dinners, I think that’s really SUper, super, supercool, that, that everyone somehow/ first of all, that the kitchen is cleaned up by everyone who participated in the event, and that you can also cook yourself and stuff like that I think is SUPERcool. (1) Um but I think, if there wasn’t some encouragement from the Sargas employees, it wouldn’t work so well. And also people who feel responsible, to say: ‘Okay, guys, we have to clean up NOW. We have to go home NOW. Uh and this and this and this still needs to be done.’” (interview Sina, para. 121)

The members of the operating team, and especially the community manager, take on curatorial tasks that go beyond the onboarding of new coworkers and administrative tasks such as invoicing. In this regard, Sargas coworker Sabine summarizes the range of tasks of community manager Samuel as follows: “He welcomes the people who are new, and (1) practically tells them how it works and shows them the spaces. (1) Registers them. I always get the invoice from Samuel. (laughs) (I: Mhm.) Um (2) yes, and he/ So he ASKS me also often, what I am DOing and how I AM and maybe a little bit, (1) yes, maybe just a contact person. (I: Mhm.) So if I, IF I needed something or something, I would go to Samuel and, (1) yes, (1) ask him.” (interview Sabine, para. 101)

That the social strategies of curating and the associated special role of the coworking hosts are significant for the coworkers was already evident in relation to the experienced interactions (see Sect. 11.1.2). Through the social curating, a communitization is created that is more than a work group of individuals working for themselves alongside each other (see interview Sandro, para. 41). In the image of guided communitization, the coworking hosts are not interchangeable players. The persons of the operating team and their activities are important when it comes to making the CWS a unique place that has character and personality (cf. interview Sandro, paras. 58 and 105). The personalities of the operators are relevant, as they influence the way the CWS is curated. Sympathy for the operators seems to be significant in this regard, in order to engage

12.3  The Curated Coworking: The Coworking Space …

375

in the practices of curating. Thus, in the interview Tabit user Thorsten makes it clear that he likes the operators and “the WAY and […] how the people are, just like that” and the contact or exchange with them is pleasant, creating a feeling in him that “you are welcome there and, and can contribute” (interview Thorsten, para. 131). Sargas coworker Serge makes a concrete comparison of the community manager Samuel with his predecessor in the interview (cf. for this and the following statements interview Serge, paras. 190 ff.). Although he finds both of them pleasant or nice, he notices differences in their personalities, which influence the way of curating.10 Thus, Serge experienced Samuel’s predecessor as less organized in his function as manager, but he brought in spontaneous ideas for joint activities, such as some beer after work. In contrast, Serge describes Samuel as a more solid manager, who in turn does not initiate such spontaneous activities.

12.4 Own Role in Relation to the Social Formations Analogous to the different experienced social formations of the CWSs, the coworkers also take on different roles in everyday CWS life. This is reflected in the action itself, as well as in the self-positioning in the interviews. Likewise, the CWS operators pick up on certain CWS images and address certain user roles. Thus, users are customers of the service coworking, members of the self-organized communitization or (passive) members of the curated communitization. While community-oriented people tend to pick up on images of the self-organized communitization and typically see themselves as equal members, workfocused people tend to have an understanding of the CWS as a service company or curated communitization. Accordingly, the latter present their own role in the CWS as a customer of a service, as in the case of Tristan, or, and this more often, as a passive member of the (curated) community, as in the case of Sandro: “[F] or ME it’s really a matter of eh (3) FINding my own eh place here, (I: Mhm.) my ROLE, like not too/ I, I don’t want to be (1) eh the most active member, but I also feel like I can do a bit more eh maybe” (interview Sandro, para. 104). Thus,

10 Similarly, in

the interview, community manager Samuel himself reflects on his and his predecessor’s different skills and admits that the interpretation of the role of the community manager and the focus on the tasks are individually different and dependent on the personality (cf. interview Samuel_1, paras. 15 ff.). This indicates that the role of the community manager in Sargas is associated with a relatively large scope for action. The work of the community manager is highly subjectified.

376

12  Subject Perspective IV: Views On the Social Formations …

the customer role of work-focused people is often reinterpreted in the community context: They then see themselves as passive members who hardly participate in the community activities. In the behavior or also in the way of self-presentation (this especially in the interviews of the work-focused people) another role that the coworkers take on becomes apparent: That of the “passive” consumers, who experience a sense of belonging to the CWS community by consuming this and the associated communal atmospheres, without actively co-creating them. This becomes clear, for example, from the description of Sargas user Sabine about the mood in the Sargas Café: “[I]n the Café (2) [I find it] pleasant, somehow CONVIVIAL, positive mood. Eh friendly also somehow. Although (2) now I am not, with no one HERE really FRIENDS, but it is somehow, you feel so, and the people know you, they say hello” (interview Sabine, para. 3). Thus, Sabine consumes the (curated) sociable, positive and friendly atmosphere of the Sargas Café, which is underlined by the fact that she states that she has no real friendships here. There are also work-focused people who present the CWS as a self-organized communitization, although they themselves behave more like a customer or consumer, as the example of Tabit user Till showed. Conversely, for example, the community-oriented Sargas user Stefan also sees the aspects of the CWS as a profit-oriented service company and curated communitization. This also shows that different roles and perspectives are applied in parallel in everyday CWS life. Different roles can be taken on by one person. Also, the roles of a person can change over time, as shown by the interview excerpt of Sargas dropout Samir: “This place has been for me a LOT. So ah/ (1) ah there were times, eh it was also, I was much more part of the community. Eh it was also a place, where eh there was a time I was very much integrated, FRIENDWISE. So we were also DOING here a lot of other stuff rather than working HERE or in other places. So we were hanging out, a group, you know. It was, it was a SOCIAL CIRCLE that ah I used to be MORE a part of in the past. And there HAS been here so many things changing and steps, so it has been for me eh, eh sometimes a HOME, sometimes just a place, eh where I am eh just eh COME for the WORK. It has been a lot of things to me.” (interview Samir, para. 46)

The subjective meaning of Sargas thus fluctuated between the poles of being a pure workplace on the one hand and a home on the other hand. This was accompanied by corresponding attitudes as work-focused, passive customer or as community-oriented user and integrated, active member of the Sargas community. That especially the role understanding as a member of the community is of importance when it comes to how the users deal with tensions in everyday CWS life, will be discussed in the next chapter.

12.5  Interim Conclusion: Perspectives On the Social …

377

12.5 Intermediate Conclusion: Perspectives On the Social Formations of the Coworking Space The typology that was developed in this chapter provides an important basis for the following chapter. It was shown that the social formations of the CWSs are characterized differently by their users. Thus, a CWS is understood as a selforganized communitization, as a curated communitization, and as a societization. The three social formations experienced by the coworkers are compared again in Table 12.1. Although in both case studies all three forms of social formations are taken up by the users, there are different emphases: While in the case of Tabit, the selforganized communitization is rather used, in the case study of Sargas, which appears more anonymous due to the broader range of services despite a similar number of coworking spaces, the guided communitization is more strongly invoked as an image. It should be noted that societization is not a predominant image in the users’ representations. The different forms of social formations are not only characteristic for the users’ view of the CWS. They also shape the everyday CWS life. They are found in the public and academic coworking discourse, where the communitization is particularly emphasized as a special feature of the coworking concept (cf. Sect. 2.2.2). Likewise, the social formations are also taken up by the operators and used in the context of curating, when it comes to the community image or the vision of community (cf. Garrett et al. 2017) conveyed by the CWSs, as will be further elaborated below for the examined CWSs (cf. Sect. 13.3.2). Despite the coexistence of communitization and societization in everyday CWS life, it can be assumed that certain organizational models favor certain forms of social formations and associated perspectives on them. While a cooperatively organized CWS evokes images of self-organized communitization, a top-down organized CWS of a CWS chain generates notions of societization. With regard to the social logic that dominates the CWSs, following Spinuzzi et al. (2019), despite the community promises in reality paradoxically the type of societization prevails (cf. Sect. 4.4), whereby de Peuter et al. (2017, p. 691) also point out the commodity character of coworking in this regard: “In its predominant form, coworking is a commodity, a service for which customers pay a fee.” This different importance of communitization and societization in the subjective experience of CWSs and in the discourse on the one hand and in the reality of CWSs on the other hand points to potential for conflict. In this regard, following Spinuzzi et al. (2019), it is of interest to examine the coexistence of communitiz-

CWS operators as service providers Coworking as service

Service providers, who offer professional service Are interchangeable as role holders

Not in focus CWS as socialization

CWS as community that is curated Coworking is self-made, but guided

Special status, community building, networkers/curatorial tasks Are not easily interchangeable, as the personality of the hosts is important Active and passive participation of members, is curated by operators in the CWS everyday life CWS as post-traditional communitization Few, “common sense” Are guided by hosts (within the scope of curating)

Characteristic of the CWS as shared apartment, community of purpose image among like-minded people Coworking is self-made

Reduced to administrative functions (contact persons, onboarding, events, coffee) Are interchangeable as role holders

Is self-made by active participation of all members CWS as traditional communitization

Few, “common sense”

Role of Coworking Hosts/Community Managers

Community

Rules

11 First published in Bernhardt (2021, p. 64), reprinted with kind permission of Springer Nature Customer Service Centre GmbH: Springer, Coworking as Revolution of the Working World. From Corporate Coworking to Workation, edited by S. Werther, ©Springer 2021.

Would have to be explicitly defined, communicated and monitored by operators

Customer-service provider relationship as societization Coworking as commodity

Curated communitization The curated coworking

Self-organized communitization The true coworking

Table 12.1   Experienced social formations in the CWS context (Own illustration11)

378 12  Subject Perspective IV: Views On the Social Formations …

12.5  Intermediate Conclusion: Perspectives On the Social …

379

tion and societization in everyday CWS life and any resulting tensions or contradictions. As the following explanations will show, this creates tensions on the one hand, and on the other hand, tensions are also weakened by this.

Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life

13

This chapter will show that the coworking concept also brings together different social principles in everyday life, which can create tensions. Spinuzzi and his research team (2019, p. 133) have already anticipated that in concrete CWSs, mixtures of social relations can lead to tensions.1 Thus, as was inductively worked out in the context of this study, there is on the one hand the understanding that the CWS is organized as a service by the operators. On the other hand, there is the assumption that the core functions of CWSs are guaranteed equally by operators and users as a self-organized communitization. While the image of the service (which is based on rather purposive-rational motivated interest balancing, but also on rather value-rational motivated interest connection) corresponds more to societization in the Weberian sense, that of the self-organized community (which expresses itself through subjectively felt belonging) refers to communitization (see Weber 2013, pp. 194 f.). These two logics were already worked out in the previous section with regard to the social formations of the CWS characterized by the users. At the level of the CWS, the images can be sharpened to two poles, between which coworking fluctuates in everyday life.

1 The

typical social formations that were inductively worked out in the context of this study show similarities to the typology of Spinuzzi et al. (2019) (see Sect. 4.4), although they are only partially comparable due to the different orientation. The commodity coworking or CWSs as service providers can be found in the type Gesellschaft by Spinuzzi et al. (2019). The true coworking or the self-organized communitization shows parallels to the type Collaborative. Collaboration was conceptualized differently in the context of the present study and is understood as social interaction (see Gerdenitsch et al. 2016).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 A. Bernhardt, Coworking Atmospheres, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41193-0_13

381

382

13  Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life

• On the one hand, the commodity coworking, which reflects the formal characteristic of CWSs, in which coworking is a service that is provided by the operators within the framework of a contract. • And on the other hand, the true coworking, which reflects the implicit characteristic of CWSs and the importance of community in the coworking concept, which is repeatedly emphasized in the discourse: Here, coworking is a joint product, in which all members of the CWS, operators and users alike, are involved. A mediating position is taken by the third image of the CWS as a curated coworking. Here, the operators have a special role in enabling and promoting social interactions and creating a sense of belonging (together). The case studies show what Weber (2013, p. 195 f.) already points out: The social formations in CWSs have partly the character of communitization (coworking as (self-organized) community or the true coworking) and partly that of societization (coworking as a service or also the commodity coworking). Only through the coexistence of both logics does the potential for tensions open up, which can lead to various larger and smaller, often unspoken conflicts. The tensions can also be distinguished according to which core function they mainly refer to. Is it about workspaces and atmospheres on the one hand or about community spaces and the creation of communal atmospheres and a sense of belonging (together) on the other hand? With regard to the commodity coworking, there are tensions and conflicts regarding the performance of service, providing and curating work and community spaces. In relation to the true coworking, tensions also arise when, for example, fewer relationships or social interactions occur than expected or coworkers do not participate in communal rituals. In the following sections, the tensions that arise from this double logic of CWSs in relation to the coexistence of communitization and societization are revealed. Data sources for the following sections are own observations and field notes as well as the conflicts told in the user and operator interviews. The following sections serve to explain the individual fields of tension and also illuminate how the coworkers and operators deal with the tensions.

13.1 Tensions in Relation to the Commodity Coworking In the image of coworking as a commodity, coworking is provided by the operators unilaterally as a service to the coworkers as customers. The core functions of work and community space are part of the service coworking, for whose performance the operators bear the responsibility.

13.1  Tensions in Relation …

383

13.1.1 Service Work Space Let us first look at the tensions in relation to the service work space: As part of the service, the spaces are supposed to support the coworkers in their work as well as in activities of reproduction of their own labor power. The offer of different work settings and break places and associated services is central. Here, the observed and told (mostly small) tensions in everyday CWS life are diverse. For example, the Sargas CWS and the Café could be opened earlier to allow early work. It is criticized that no free coffee or tea is offered in Sargas for the coworkers (as is typical for CWSs and the case in Tabit, for example) or there is a desire for more storage space for own documents in Tabit. The range goes from neglected places and uncomfortable furniture to silent conflicts that the coworkers have to deal with when they have to cope with disturbances by co-present others in the spaces for concentrated mental work, who violate the rules of the work setting from their point of view. The following sections will go into more detail on the individual tensions. The uninhabited space: neglected, old, uncomfortable Upon closer inspection of the inanimate space of Sargas, one can also find less aestheticized or even neglected container spaces that appear rather uninviting and thus evoke less positive, if not negative, emotions: the self-service kitchen on the Silent Floor and the toilets.2 The Sargas toilets are two small container rooms with one unisex toilet, a sink and a shower cubicle each, which are positioned on the Vibrant Floor and the Silent Floor respectively. Especially the toilet on the Vibrant Floor, which is also used by the Café guests, leads to queues from time to time. Fittingly, there is a sofa near the toilet. The spatial design of the toilets can be described as functional and simple and to me as a user, they appear neglected and “very provisional” (field notes BP01, para. 38). This impression is caused by the fact that, for exam-

2 In

Tabit, there are no such uninviting places, although there are areas that are less used by the coworkers, such as a podium-like blue structure in the front part of the Classic Office, on which two large pillows are draped and which at first glance looks as if its users should rest on it. However, I do not see anyone who does this, which is not surprising, since the podium is located in the Open Space, where concentrated work is supposed to take place. In addition, the material of the podium does not seem to invite anybody to lie down and rest, as user Timo notes: “Yes, that is/ it has just two pillows and the rest is CONCRETE, so (laughs). It is not very (laughing) COMFORTABLE” (interview Timo, para. 72).

384

13  Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life

ple, the shower cubicles have been misused as “storage rooms” (field notes BP07, para. 10) for cleaning utensils or packages and no longer fulfill their original purpose. Due to frequent use, the toilets are also not always clean and it can happen that soap is missing or the small guest towels are not changed for a longer period of time. This is also criticized by Silent Floor user Sina: “It’s just the SMALL things that, that then somehow annoy a little bit. For example, that there are/ These disgusting TOWELS on the, on the toilets, ey, so d/ Why do they have to be ten by ten centimeters? And then hm [people] wash their hands somehow/ Or let’s say, IN TOTAL maybe FIFTY people go to the toilet and wash/ uh dry their hands. So I mean, how disgusting can a towel get? So I mean, it’s winter and people probably have VIRuses and all sorts of things. So those are the SMALL things. That’s not too dramatic, of course. But ultimately, ACTUALLY I always think to myself/ I mean, I haven’t made any attempts to address it or something, BECAUSE it’s just small things. But on the OTHER hand, it’s the small things that count somehow, because you go to the toilet several times a day. And then uh (1) it would actually be a BIG improvement if there was a decent towel or something.” (interview Sina, para. 87)

Sina says in this regard that she has not yet tried to address the problem with the towels with the operating team, insofar as it is “small things” that bother her. However, she adds that the elimination of such small problems would represent a “BIG improvement”. Fix-desk coworker Sven solves the problem for the Silent Floor in the role of a member of the self-organized community by buying towels on his own, instead of demanding the performance of the service from the operating team (cf. transcript of conversation Sven, para. 7). Nevertheless, in the conversation he also positions himself as a customer who sees the responsibily for the elimination of other deficiencies with the operating team (cf. ibid., para. 5 ff.)3. In the interviews, the toilets are rarely mentioned. The Sargas-self-service kitchen is also functional and simple in design (cf. Sect. 7.2.2.5). To me as a user, it appears “very shared-apartment-like simple […], somewhat shabby” (field notes BP01, para. 38), untidy and “loveless” (field notes BP02, para. 33). The kitchen is constructed as a space of the self-organized community, to which various aspects contribute: the shelf jointly used by the CWS members, on which food, dishes and other kitchen items are arranged, the

3 However, Sven

has also spoken to Community Manager Samuel, although his feedback was not implemented and he does not know why (transcript of conversation Sven, para. 16). In the conversation, he also notes that it still feels too new after two months of membership to criticize too much (ibid.).

13.1  Tensions in Relation …

385

shared refrigerator, which also stores food, the printed notes on the refrigerator and on the wall: “The kitchen…” resp. “The fridge is for everyone to use and share. Please help us keeping it clean.”4, or the piled-up dishes in and next to the sink. The self-service kitchen is only mentioned by those coworkers who use it in the interviews—mainly in its function of food storage and preparation, whereby the quality and scope of the kitchen equipment are rated as low. Scott explains the quality of the self-service kitchen’s facilities as follows: “The kitchen upstairs. There’s, yeah, there’s a coffee machine that almost doesn’t WORK. Eh or that is like a bit mixed with pretty shitty coffee. (Laughing) Eh (1) there’s no, almost no/ I mean like it’s not very taken care, it’s not taken care of, you know, like eh (1) it’s very like (1) minimal, mini/ minimal things or very, very basic. (I: Mhm.) And you cannot like/ (1) NOT cook, but you cannot for example HEAT eh s/ food. Because we, we like to cook our, our own food. (I: Mhm.) And we (1) we always bring our, our Tupperwares and, and all our food. And, and these days it’s like, oh, we are bringing here all the time like salads and cold stuff, ‘cause eh you cannot heat it up. (I: Mhm.) Eh (2) and also there’s not like, not enough eh like GLASSES or plates or, you know? (I: Mhm.) Eh and especially this, there’s no like good coffee. Ehm/ […] there’s one downstairs but you have to pay, (laughing) you know?”(Scott, interview Scott_Sophie, para. 156 ff.)

In contrast to the Café, which offers “very good coffee” (interview Sandro), which you have to pay for, Scott states in the interview that there is a coffee machine in the self-service kitchen that hardly works and that there is no good coffee. He also emphasizes that the kitchen is not taken care of (in the context of curating), that it is only poorly furnished and that there is no possibility to cook or heat up food. For people like Scott and Sophie, who bring their own food, this limits the options for preparing their own food and also the type of food. A comparison with the aestheticized Sargas Café or Garden shows that the self-service kitchen as an uninviting, sparsely designed container space represents a back or backstage and at the same time a necessary and as such staged counterpart to the aestheticized Café as a front stage within the framework of curating (cf. Goffman 2005): Thus, the self-service kitchen opens up the possibility of consuming self-brought food, which initially signals openness and accessibility. However, the sparse, functional design of the container space, which is neglected within the framework of curating, hardly invites to use this possibility and to linger here longer, especially since here (in contrast to the Café or a conventional

4 Unlike

handwritten notes, these were pre-printed by the operating team.

386

13  Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life

office kitchen) no social interactions are fostered (cf. below Sect. 13.1.2). The coworkers are guided from the uninvitingself-service kitchen to the attractive aestheticized Café, which has an equally appealing lunch and drink offer, which can be consumed together with the inviting atmosphere. Here, the logic of societization comes into play, within which the CWS as a service provider encourages the users to take advantage of the service offer. At the same time, the little-used kitchen does not endanger the work setting of the Silent Floor as a quiet work space. Upon closer examination of the Sargas open spaces themselves, there are also furniture and corners that appear less aestheticized and neglected. For example, the wall workstations of the Sargas Vibrant Floor, which let their users look at a sparse white tiled wall, which in the logic of the sensual neutrality of the spaces for concentrated mental work focus on their own work. In the case of the Sargas Silent Floor, I also discover in the open space itself “loveless” corners, as I note in the following protocol excerpt. “Somehow this room—like the toilet and the kitchen—when you look closer, looks loveless in some corners—next to me are boxes, on the wall next to the toilet are folding chairs leaning, next to the printer there is another large box of an iMac screen. On my table, although flex desk, old batteries were left, a stapler, a few A5 sheets and postcards.” [Field notes BP_05, para. 2]

In detail, the flex desk, where I have positioned myself, is not clean, but shows traces of personalization by its previous users. Stored boxes5 disturb the image of a composed, aestheticized spatial arrangement. Together with the self-service kitchen, it seems as if the Silent Floor is an open space that is less in the focus of curating work space, insofar as it is not a communal space of social interactions. At the same time, this gives the Silent Floor as well as the kitchen the impression of a space of self-organized, authentic community, where there are also imperfect corners and things that refer to the other members of the community. The message is that of the self-service kitchen: Each individual bears responsibility for the uninhabited space. In addition, both CWSs examined have furniture with visible signs of wear and tear, such as stained, sagging sofas or worn-out chairs. This applies not only to the old furniture, which are literally vintage, but also to the conventional furni-

5 The

reason why folding chairs or boxes are positioned in the open space is that there are no spaces in the CWS designated for storing things (cf. interview Sarah, paras. 54 f.).

13.1  Tensions in Relation …

387

ture: For example, the upholstery of the office chairs in the Tabit Classic Office is partly worn out and a sofa has visible stains on closer inspection. The partly old and worn-out furnishings lead to the fact that not all furniture meets the users’ expectations of ergonomics and comfort (see Sect. 10.1.1.3). Thus, the seating options away from the office chair are not always rated as comfortable by people with an unconventional understanding of work space (see interview Thorsten, para. 67). Likewise, conventional office furniture receives criticism in terms of quality and ergonomics: “[About the Sargas Silent Floor] Well, the, the chairs are a bit/ (1) Uh, there they/ they could do a bit more, they are all pretty saggy or also (1) CRAPPY like that, so maybe you don’t sit so ergonomically perfect there. (1) But you can also bring your own equipment. So you can/ you have the complete freedom, if you now bring a chair from home with/ you just leave it there and then that’s your chair.” (interview Stefan, para. 33) “[In relation to the Sargas Vibrant Floor, Sabine wishes:] Maybe a few new chairs. (laughs) Uh I see right now [note AB: looking through the window of the door of the multifunctional space to the Vibrant Floor]. (laughs) So a [little] PROVISIONAL everything, which somehow, I think, also has a, (1) a (laughing) charm. (I laughs) That not everything is so perfect/ Also the tables wobble sometimes. And that, and that sometimes bothers me a bit. (1) Hm yesterday was/ the light didn’t work. Which didn’t bother me personally, but I think, a, a coworker was a bit annoyed. (I: Mhm.) But (1) I actually find it quite, (1) quite nice, when not everything is perfect.” (interview Sabine, para. 77)

In both quotes, however, the criticism is relativized. Stefan notes that there is the possibility to bring one’s own chair—formally a privilege of the fixed-desk coworkers, who can personalize their workplace as a primary territory.6 In addition to solving a problem by oneself, Sabine introduces another strategy in dealing with the shortcomings: Instead of the quality of the furniture, the special aesthetics and the positive atmosphere that these furniture create are emphasized. For Sabine, the fact that the furnishings are not “so perfect” has “charm” and is appealing. That different spatial arrangements and associated atmospheres fuel different expectations regarding the quality of the furniture among the users is shown by

6 To

what extent it would actually work in reality to deposit one’s own chair as a flex-desk user without it being occupied by other users is questionable in this respect, as this would contradict the flex-desk principle. Thus, it is a disadvantage of desk sharing that the ergonomics of the seating options do not always meet one’s own expectations, as also addressed in the following quote by Tabit user Theo.

388

13  Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life

the following interview excerpt with Tabit user Theo. When asked what he would change in Tabit, he expresses his wish for more standing workstations in the Classic Office and continues: “So partly it is eh the furniture a bit/ So down there [note AB: Creative Space] it does not matter that it is a bit wobbly and a bit squeaky and still a bit (inc.) is, There I would say, it has a certain FLAIR. But in the upper area [note AB: Classic Office], that it is partly somehow a bit back tables (laughs). (I: Mhm.) And that is then again NOT very advantageous, because by the fact that I do not have a fixed workplace, where you could change it accordingly.” (interview Theo, paras. 194 f.)

Similar to Sabine, Theo attributes “flair” to the furnishings of the Creative Space and puts ergonomics last. To put it bluntly, the imperfection of the furniture (the wobbling and squeaking) seems to make up the flair of the Creative Space. The office equipment of the less aesthetic and more instrumental and ergonomic Classic Office, on the other hand, has to meet the requirements of a conventional ergonomic office—in this respect, “reasonable TABLES” (ibid., para. 197) in the form of standing tables are important for Theo. Limits of the work setting concentrated mental work: unspoken conflicts Providing different work settings is part of the service coworking. This also involves creating work settings in the case of the CWSs studied that promote concentrated mental work in particular and are characterized by quietness and mutual consideration. Insofar as different users synthesize different spaces and interpret rules in different ways, and the spaces and associated atmospheres are in turn dependent on the present and placing people, there is also potential for conflict in this respect—especially for those spaces for concentrated mental work with comparatively rigid noise rules. In both cases, there are users among the interview partners who feel disturbed by co-present others without addressing this with the persons concerned. Tabit user Tristan, who has a fixed workplace in the Classic Office, values peace and “not too much hectic” (interview Tristan, para. 6) for his work. However, working in the Classic Office also means for him in this respect “sometimes too much, that is, too much BURDEN” (interview Tristan, para. 8), which weighs so heavily that he tells me about it relatively early in the interview when being asked about the mood in the CWS. More specifically, he is bothered by the high fluctuation of people in the CWS and the associated people who do not introduce themselves to him, or people who behave loudly and inconsiderately. He explains:

13.1  Tensions in Relation …

389

“IF you already have a separation between this kind of public space DOWNstairs and (1) a working space UPstairs, which was defined like that once, (1) that the working space also really needs to be for WORKing and for/ also a certain QUIETness must prevail. (2) And, well, that is often not the case, that is then anyway/ that is then BROKEN again in principle. But then it is also not written anywhere or communicated in any way, that (2) that, well, a certain quietness is needed, but, well, it is just written: ‘Working Space’. And everyone can now interpret and understand and, well, and do as he LIKES in the working space. That means, some TALK all day with their colleagues, whether it is work or not work or private. (1) Well, up to a certain DEGREE I find it no problem at all. And beyond a certain degree it is simply a/ for ME a burden or a, actually rather a nuiSANCE, because then I think like this: (1) I HEAR a lot of things that (1) don’t have to be. Well, I mean, I don’t want to/ that/ every social, (1) ev/ every social interaction to be stopped or something, but/ And a joke and a bit of conver/ well, communication is also deSIRED and (1) is also GOOD, but (1) I also had DA/, well, DAYS, well (1) as I said, sometimes just beyond a certain AMOUNT of, (1) yes, of, of conTINuous/ of conTINUOUS NOISE, (2) just at some point like, yes, (1) well, MEANingless and also somehow (I: Hm.) counterproductive. I always think like this/ very classically according to, somehow according to KANT, well, if EVERYONE did it, then it would be unbearable here. (I: Mhm.) So some take the liberty and then the others have to SUFFER from it.” (interview Tristan, para. 8)

In doing so, Tristan defines the permitted behaviors closely according to the work setting concentrated mental work. He perceives disturbances by inconsiderate co-present others negatively as (acoustic) “burden” or “nuisance” up to “conTINuous/ of conTINUOUS NOISE”, which, as he further explains, also affects his productivity. Tristan understands the CWS as a service provider of the commodity work space and holds the operating team responsibile for it, which for him does not communicate the rules regarding the work settings clearly and explicitly.7 Therefore, he does not see it as his task to address disturbing coworkers, but thinks it (in the role as a customer of a service) is the responsibility of the operators to approach disturbing coworkers professionally, as he explains in the interview with a concrete example (cf. interview Tristan, para. 52). In the case of Sargas Silent Floor, the rule of silence can make even the smallest noises of other users annoying, such as noises generated by eating: “Sometimes is one, one person that EATS a lot while (1) EATING in the Silent (1) FLOOR. (I: Mhm.) And this just (1) gets me on my nerves” (interview Sebastian_1, para. 55). Coworker Sebastian is bothered by someone eating next to him 7 On

the other hand, operator Tabea emphasizes in the interview the image of the selforganized community in which explicit rules do not go together with negative sanctions (cf. interview Tabea, para. 74).

390

13  Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life

while he is working—an implicit violation of the rule in the Silent Floor, which is designed as a workspace. Sina mentions a user in the interview who comes across unlikeable in terms of his appearance (behaves like an “pencil pusher”, “he is also always slightly stressed when, when someone makes noise”, “because he looks a bit angry”, “from his body language NOT at all open” for a conversation (interview Sina, paras. 95 ff.)), although she has never talked to him. In this regard, she experiences the way he handles a pen as “SUPER annoying”: “[T]he ONE, (laughs) that is MY unspoken conflict, he, he always spins his, his/ Do you know the people who always spin their PEN somehow to think or something, like this over the hand? And every fifth time it falls down, that is SUPER annoying, when you have to listen to it (I: (laughs)) all day (laughs) how the PEN falls to the, to the table. (I: Mhm.) But that was the mean guy, with whom I have no relationship at all, so I didn’t know how to address it.” (interview Sina, para. 113)

All three coworkers, however, do not express their displeasure directly to the disturbing person, but this remains “an annoyance, an unspoken one” (interview Tristan, para. 52), which the other person does not necessarily notice (cf. ibid.). While Tristan sees the responsibility for addressing the conflict with the operating team, Sebastian relativizes that the situation he described has only occurred twice and that he has also eaten in front of the laptop himself. Likewise, Sina refers to the fact that she could also disturb other Silent Floor users when she washes the dishes in the self-service kitchen: “I think, that happens to the others as well. (1) SURELY I annoy someone totally with my clattering of the dishes” (interview Sina, para. 113). She also points out that it is difficult to address the problem with the other person without a common relationship. Since the communication of problems in the spaces for concentrated mental work is limited or almost impossible, they are fought out as internal conflicts. This is contributed by the silent work setting. That the setting makes communication with co-present others, whom one does not know, difficult, is also shown by the example of Sargas Silent Floor user Sven, who chose his fixed desk opposite that of another user, without asking for her consent (cf. for this and the following remarks transcript of conversation Sven, para. 18). Positioned in close proximity, the opposite influences the perceived atmosphere—in this regard, Sven mentions in the conversation that he initially did not know whether his opposite feels comfortable with him positioning himself at the table opposite her (and thus: whether he, as an element of her synthesized space, contributes to a pleasant (work)atmosphere for her). He also did not talk to her about it. Here, the work setting concentrated mental work reaches its limits.

13.1  Tensions in Relation …

391

Too few retreat possibilities As already discussed in Sect. 10.1.3, there is a demand for more retreat options for phone calls, meetings, relaxation or concentrated mental work from the users of both CWSs studied—a shortcoming of the service work space. In addition, both case studies report scheduling conflicts regarding the use of the meeting rooms or the multifunctional space, insofar as not all coworkers follow the official procedures of booking. Conflicts over meeting room bookings are resolved among the coworkers themselves, without involving the operators, as Tabit coworker Troy tells: “[A] SMALL conflict is when you book the meeting room here, and MOST of them don’t book it, and then uh (1) yeah, but then you/ SOLVE it then. […] if it’s just an internal meeting, then I find a solution, if it’s an external meeting, then I KICK the people out. (I: Mhm.) But they also go out, you don’t have to KICK them out.” (interview Troy, paras. 144 ff.)

As shown by the example of coworker Tristan in Sect. 10.1.3, inner retreat spaces cannot always be constituted and not for every activity, which can also affect one’s own productivity. In the context of my autoethnography as a working coworker, I repeatedly experience in smaller CWSs with only one open space and few other physical-material retreat options that I cannot concentrate when the sound atmosphere of the space is too captivating. If retreat options are lacking, strong negative feelings up to anger can be triggered.8 Irritations of the work setting interaction For those interactive spaces that are not only workspaces and are open for different activities in this respect, such as the Sargas Café and the Garden, the setting is comparatively resistant to disturbances. If coworkers cannot concentrate on their work there, they can visit the other spaces. The same applies to the Tabit Creative

8 I

record an event in F-Space, where I worked for a long time: “I’m so angry right now. Fabian has a meeting with Frida at the big table in the open space (it’s now the second longer meeting today), so the two of them are not acoustically shielded from me. And I can’t concentrate. All my strategies of retreat fail: I only have normal headphones with me (and not those with noise-canceling function). Chopin [note AB: music that I listen to over headphones] can’t drown out the conversation. So I try the meeting room and switch there. But here too I hear the conversation because of the thin partition wall. Only quietly, but because I’m already so upset (this morning noise from the construction site, then the meetings in the open space), I’m annoyed anyway, because I can’t get into the work flow. I think about switching to the university library” (field diary F-Space).

392

13  Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life

Space and the Sargas Vibrant Floor. For these container rooms, which are clearly defined as workspaces, the noise level and the associated (work) atmosphere are even more dependent on the people present and can vary more. This can also lead to uncertainties among the users as to what the current behaviors are at the time of use. Here, sensing the current communicative (work) atmosphere and the permitted behaviors is crucial, as Silent Floor user Samir addresses in the following interview excerpt for the Sargas Vibrant Floor: “The FIRST floor [note AB: Vibrant Floor] is ehm, you know, has been, had, has had many days. You know, sometimes it’s very loud, sometimes it’s extremely QUIET. I also don’t know. Sometimes I have a call and I need to do it and I SIT here and I don’t know whether I can talk loud or I cannot talk loud today here. It’s really about feeling the situation and eh whether it’s today to chat or not. There has been times, that there were, I don’t know, two women here eh running an office, you know. (I: Mhm.) A lot of PHONE CALLS and, and it was LOUD. Ehm (1) eh not only THIS, you know. There has been MANY, you know. (I: Mhm.) It REALLY changes the first floor. Eh one can never know what’s gonna happen.” (interview Samir, para. 143)

According to Samir, the noise level on the Vibrant Floor ranges between the two extremes of “very loud” and “extremely QUIET”, which results in him not always knowing how to behave and whether he can talk loudly or not during a phone call (that he can talk is regulated by the work setting). In his experience, it is important as a work strategy to sense the shared situation and the associated atmosphere of interpersonal communication. At the Tabit Creative Space, the football table as an artifact of the shared leisure activity, which is used by representatives of different user types alike, is a source of tension. The game there brings noise with it and can thus endanger the work atmosphere. In this respect, there was a time when an explicit rule applied that only playing over lunch was allowed, which indicates that playing at the football table during work time was problematized by the operating team. However, this rule is no longer valid at the time of the study and is now ignored by the playing users, as user Toni notes: “Toni: [T]here WAS an explicit rule, when you can eh (1) play TABLE FOOTBALL. (I: Mhm.) (1) But there is nothing there on the wall anymore. (1) eh/ I: How was that eh/ Toni: That was something like: from twelve to two or so it is allowed. (1) Eh there is nothing there anymore, we don’t stick to it anymore.” (interview Toni, paras. 89 ff.)

13.1  Tensions in Relation …

393

Those users who work in the Creative Space seem to cope with it more or less and accept interaction as part of the work setting. The football table is not addressed as a disturbing factor in the interviews. Lack of visibility or absence of coworking hosts In both CWSs, there is no clearly placed and symbolically marked reception, where the community managers usually stay and are identifiable as such for newcomers. At the Tabit Creative Space, there is a so-called “Reception Desk” in the back part of the container room (and not at the entrance), but this is a small sorting table that is never occupied. The community manager instead usually positions himself at the large table in the kitchen area next to the Reception Desk. In Sargas, there is the “Sargas table” on the Vibrant Floor, which is not officially marked as such. There, the community manager and/or the intern usually position themselves. Depending on who of the two takes on the role as contact person for the coworkers, there is a sign on their laptop: “I’m your host today”. However, newcomers first arrive at the Sargas Café, which leads to the fact that the counter in the Sargas Café is often the first point of contact for new coworkers (cf. interview Serge, para. 138 ff.). In both cases, the hosts are not immediately findable and identifiable for new people. It also happens in both CWSs that the community managers are not present when new coworkers arrive. In this regard, I am told examples in the interviews where coworkers take on the role of the community manager in relation to the onboarding: “[I] have the feeling […], the people who come in for the first time, they are always a bit lost at first at the ENTRANCE like this (I: Mhm.): ‘Hello (laughs), I’m here now and where do I actually have to go and who can I ask?’ and so on. A little bit the ONBOARDING could maybe be improved a bit, I have the feeling. So for new Tabits and so on. (I: Mhm.) Whereas USUALLY someone takes care of it somehow, when, when you see, someone comes and (1) uh, he obviously doesn’t know his way around, then there is usually someone who takes care of him right away and brings him somehow (1) to Tom or just gives him a tour or something. But that’s pretty uncomplicated.” (interview Thorsten, para. 89) “[S]omeTIMES when I work on the first floor I come before HIM [note AB: Community Manager Samuel]. (I: Mhm.) So that all these people coming around/ I, I mean, Sargas opens at nine. And I come around nine o’clock. And basically I think, he comes later, like half past nine or ten, it depends. (1) And so I mean OFTEN, what happens, I mean THIS happens like many times, is that somebody COMES and then they start talking to me, just because I’m the only PERSON who is HERE in, in the morning. (1) And they want to know: how can I start working? Because

394

13  Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life

the, the Café maybe is still closed. And I say:‘Ya, just take your seat, your desk, and then, when Samuel is here, I will just/’ I mean, when the manager is here, you just TALK to him and you pay and you subscribe and you do whatever you want. (I: Mhm.) So sometimes it’s ME like welcoming new people.” (interview Serge, para. 138)

The shortcomings in the service are compensated for in this case by the coworkers, who take on the task of onboarding as an active member of the self-organized community. Events interfere with work To ensure that events do not interfere with the daily work, they usually take place in both CWSs at off-peak times or on weekends. In Sargas, there is also the Event Space on the 4th floor, where, in addition to the artists’ programs, external workshops and other events take place, so that the work of the coworkers is hardly affected by them. However, in both CWSs there are exceptions during my field stay. If the different activities of work and non-work and the events take place at the same time, this can lead to conflict situations (cf. Fabbri 2016, p. 356). For example, on a normal working day at Sargas, a workshop takes place on the Vibrant Floor and an event in the Event Space. The coworkers have the Silent Floor for working, which is accordingly densely occupied on that day, as well as the Garden, which becomes an increasingly popular place to stay despite the cold with increasing sun and lack of alternatives during the day. I note in the field notes: “The Café is almost full when I arrive. The babble of voices is hard for me to bear, it is loud. For me it is clear that I will go to the 2nd floor. Up here I can’t find a place at first. Only two fixed desks are still free. Some people sit in pairs at the tables. I sit down at the head of a table […]. The girl who sits at the table that is perpendicular to the other two tables tolerates it. The table next to me is free, but it is a fixed desk, I don’t dare to sit there. At that moment Samuel and Sean are busy placing two more tables from the 1st floor in the Silent Floor. They put them next to the plant wall on the left of the entrance. There is still enough space there. […] I move to one of the new free places.” (Field notes BP17, para. 2)

As the excerpt shows, the limited use of the open spaces creates density and loosens the rules of the Silent Floor: On that day, tables are shared (although I (and also the others) stick to the fixed-desk rule, not to occupy those places) and I also register coworkers who whisper to each other in the further course. The operators react to the density by positioning additional tables, which also remain in place afterwards. At lunchtime, the Café is also closed for an hour and is only accessi-

13.1  Tensions in Relation …

395

ble to the visitors of the event in the Event Space. This makes Sargas primarily an event venue. The coworking is organized on the side. For the coworkers, only the Silent Floor and the Garden are accessible. This increases the perceived density and makes the otherwise clearly regulated Silent Floor “a little chaotic” (Field notes BP17, para. 8). The coworkers have to cope with the limited options, which they also do. I do not hear any open protest. Sargas intern Sarah hopes that this chaos is not experienced negatively by the coworkers, but is understood as a nice characteristic of Sargas: “Well, I think that’s also a little bit a part of Sargas. It’s a little bit MESSY sometimes, but it’s this cozy messy. (both laugh) So I hope people will understand it, or I WOULD, but I hope the other people will think about it in the same way” (interview Sarah, para. 60). There are also such restrictions in Tabit: For example, the Creative Space is closed on a working day for an internal event of an external company (cf. field notes AP21). For the coworkers, only the Classic Office is available, which is accordingly fully occupied on that day.9 But here too, the work setting changes to an interactive space: “There is communication, a lot of communication. On the phone, among each other between teams whose employees are distributed in the space […] communication is everywhere” (Field notes AP21, para. 2). Retreat and break places are scarce. Thus, the large meeting room is converted into a place for lunch break at noon. Both examples show: In order for the operators to organize events during working hours, the coworkers have to accept restrictions in the service of working space, without this being negotiated beforehand. Be it that they work in a cramped space without peace and without retreat possibilities, that they switch to other work places like working from home, or that they, as in the case of Sargas, cannot consume their lunch as usual in the Café. In the interviews, the events are hardly addressed and certainly not problematized. In the role of a member of the CWS community, it seems, the coworkers show understanding, instead of complaining in the role of a paying customer that they can only use a limited service.

9 In

contrast to the perceived density in the case of Sargas, it is not overcrowded in the case of Tabit, contrary to expectations. Hardly any employees of the operator company Thuban, who otherwise make up a large proportion of the Creative Space workers, are present— they seem to have been informed and switched to other work locations such as working from home.

396

13  Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life

13.1.2 Service of Community Space In the image of the service of community space, it is the task of the CWS operators to design the CWS spaces in such a way that they promote communal atmospheres and members feel as part of the CWS community and not excluded. In relation to the image that coworking is a service in which spaces of communitization are provided, there can be tensions when corresponding measures of curating do not have a communal effect or users or user groups are completely excluded. On a small scale, as I encountered occasionally during my visit to CWSs, such designed social meeting points can be misplaced, for example when a sofa that invites to relaxation and exchange is placed in a work setting that focuses on concentrated mental work and is accordingly not used (see field notes K-Space). In the case of the Sargas self-service kitchen, the tensions and associated consequences are greater. Sargas: Spatial organization of the CWS can lead to isolation As noted in relation to the uninhabited space, the self-service kitchen acts as a neglected and self-organized space of reproduction of one’s own labor power, which complements the offer of the CWS, without this being the focus of the service offer. The spatial organization of the Sargas house directs the coworkers to use the aestheticized Café and the Garden as attractive spaces of consuming food and drinks and places of break and social interactions10. The self-service kitchen on the Silent Floor is mainly used to boil water or to store own food or drinks. It is rare for me to see anyone staying longer in the kitchen and eating lunch at the small table, except for user Sina. However, the office kitchen is generally not only important as a space for reproducing one’s own work capacity, but also a social meeting point. This function is not fulfilled by the Sargas self-service kitchen. The spatial arrangement does not provide for eating in company. Thus, there is only one chair at the small kitchen table, conversations in the coffee kitchen are scarce and if they do occur, they are short and in a muted tone, according to the work setting. In this regard, Scott and Sophie note that the kitchen as a “point of meeting” (interview Scott_Sophie, paras. 244 f.) is wrongly located in the work setting concentrated mental work and explain:

10 Similarly,

in the case of Tabit: The kitchen in the Tabit Classic Office is also designed for the reproduction of one’s own labor power during work and less as a break place or social meeting point. Here, too, the coworkers are guided to the interactive Creative Space.

13.1  Tensions in Relation …

397

“Scott: [T]hose like couple of minutes that you are WAITING for that, it’s when you like (Sophie: Yeah.) there’s someone and you talk to someone. And I ACTUALLY met a girl the other day there and she was just explaining me what she was doing and/ Sophie: Yeah I //think that ah/ // Scott: //But/ (1)// Yeah, but I was feeling like we were like, ”(whispering) Ah yeah, oh what are you doing, oh yes,“ you know like, (louder) you know like/ I: Yeah, you can only WHISPER because //it’s the Silent Floor.// Sophie+Scott: //Yeah.// Sophie: I always ask, ”Why the kitchen is on the Silent FLOOR?“Because the kitchen (Scott: Yeah.) is this/ the PLACE where I want to make NOISE, where I don’t want to feel BAD if I am there just talking. And it SHOULD be the place where people could meet. So if the kitchen was here [note AB: Vibrant Floor] totally open it would be completely different than there because it feels like, it’s like a separate/ Scott: Yeah, I THINK the Silent Floor should be this one [note AB: Vibrant Floor] and/ Sophie: Yeah. Scott: And that’s ALSO like the reason, ah I mean like there’s this ROOM and you could come here to talk. And not bothering other people.” (interview Scott_Sophie, paras. 245 ff.)

Scott and Sophie, who bring their own food and use the self-service kitchen, raise the claim that it should be a space of social exchange (and not the Café, which they do not use for their break, as one has to consume the Café offer there). Accordingly, the positioning of the self-service kitchen should be in the work setting interaction, where conversations are allowed. On the other hand, Sina, who says of herself that she is the only one who “really uses the kitchen INTENSIVELY” (interview Sina, para. 41), attributes social qualities (albeit limited) to the unsocial self-service kitchen—against the background that it is located in the work setting concentrated mental work—and describes it as a space: “in which one can […] meet and really also say a few words, ALTHOUGH it is the Silent Floor” (interview Sina, para. 27). People who consume their own food and drinks are not only disadvantaged because the work setting concentrated mental work of the Sargas Silent Floor only allows very limited social interactions. In addition, only the Garden is an alternative option on site, which can be used in good weather and the work set-

398

13  Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life

ting of the Sargas Café seems to go along with the implicit prohibition of consuming self-brought food there (which corresponds to the logic of a public café). However, the prohibition is not explicitly expressed by the operating team and has not yet been openly addressed in this regard. Scott and Sophie eat their own lunch outside, but have not yet found a solution for the colder days (cf. interview Scott_Sophie, paras. 177 ff.). In view of this, they plan to talk to the community manager Samuel and ask if it is allowed to consume self-brought food in the Café. Sina, who eats alone, is the only one who also uses the self-service kitchen as a place to eat and the Garden in summer. She explains: “Sina: [W]ith the things I bring with me, of course I can’t sit down in the Café downstairs. That would be a bit inappropriate. Especially because the food is GOOD and cheap and stuff. So I mean, it’s actually already, (1) yes, UNsolidary, I almost think, that I don’t eat there. And it would be cool, of course, to build more contact with the other coworkers. But somehow five euros every day is quite expensive. And I like my own food. That’s why I always hide up there, when, when it’s not possible to eat outside.” I: //In the kitchen (?so).// Sina: //There is/ Exactly, there is// such a small, small chair. Sometimes I also work while eating. That’s why it’s quite good there, everything in one.“ (interview Sina, paras. 35 ff.)

Like Scott and Sophie, Sina does not dare to eat her self-brought food in the serviced Café. She finds her behavior almost ”UNsolidary“ (in the role of a member of the CWS community), insofar as the CWS food is ”GOOD and cheap“. At the same time, she does not want to (in the role of a customer) pay for the CWS food and prefers her own food like Scott and Sophie. In the interview excerpt, Sina also makes it clear that she would build more contact with other users in the Café. In contrast, she ”hides“ in the self-service kitchen on the ”small, small chair“. The work on the laptop and the associated practice of doing being busy fit into the work setting and rather reinforce the wish for not being addressed. This could be read as a strategy for dealing with loneliness in the self-service kitchen. Also during my field stay at Sargas, I cannot observe anyone consuming selfbrought food or drinks in the Café. Nor do I see people eating take-away food

13.1  Tensions in Relation …

399

there. What is normal in the Tabit Creative Space seems to be impossible due to the service logic of the Café.11 It becomes clear that the spatial organization of the Sargas CWS can also exclude people from communal spaces—namely the self-caterers, who cannot or do not want to consume lunch in the Café. As a result, these people have fewer opportunities to get in touch with others. In terms of the use of the work settings in general, it can be formulated in a pointed way: Coworkers can stay in the spaces for concentrated mental work during the workday, without entering into social exchange with other users. If coworkers do not also visit the interactive spaces as break places (voluntarily or involuntarily, as in the case of the self-caterers), let alone participate in events, they can be relatively isolated despite the social setting of the CWS and its function as a space of communitization. Scott and Sophie see this problem especially for the Silent-Floor users with a fixed workplace: ”Scott: [A]nother thing eh I think it’s that eh th/ THEY are very separated. They are like siloed. So eh, you know, if you work on the second floor you/ And there arrives someone/ and you/ if you’re, especially if you’re someone that have like a fixed desk in the second floor, //(1) then you’re/ // Sophie: //You don’t know ANYthing// about it. Scott: Yeah, you don’t know any/ anything about anyone working here or anyone working (1) downstairs unless you go and have lunch. […] Sophie: The problem is that sometimes I see faces that I’ve never seen. (I: Mhm.) And this is because it’s people who has their own computer on the second floor and you don’t MEET them because they are ALWAYS there. (I: Mhm.) So it’s like, yeah, it’s true it’s like not connected.“ (interview Scott_Sophie, paras. 260 ff.)

11 In

doing so, I myself once get into an unplanned crisis experiment during the field stay. While I usually eat lunch in the Sargas Café, which usually offers vegetarian food, there is only fish to choose from on one day. As a vegetarian, this forces me to get food elsewhere. I decide on take-away food, which I consume in the Café (cf. field notes BP15, para. 6). This behavior goes against the service logic of the Sargas Café, but is not sanctioned. I also get a plate from the Café staff on request, so that I can eat the food adequately. Unlike the selfcaterers, I have an excuse for my behavior: Since I am a vegetarian, it is not possible for me to consume the Café’s lunch. Accordingly, the perceived social pressure in this situation is smaller.

400

13  Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life

Such isolated users can thus remain strangers to others, even though they are regularly present. The spatial organization of the CWSs can also exclude groups of people in advance. For example, the premises of the examined CWSs Sargas and Tabit are not barrier-free, with regard to the access to the upper floors and the spatial arrangements of the toilets. Accordingly, people with mobility impairments cannot use these areas. This problem is not addressed in the interviews. Despite the values of openness and accessibility that are emphasized in the coworking discourse, this leads to the exclusion of people, as will be explained in the following with another example for the case of Tabit. Tabit: Orientation of the CWS leads to exclusions of groups of people The thematic orientation of a CWS can also lead to exclusions of groups of people. As already explained, the CWS Tabit mainly appeals to people from the ICT sector and start-ups, which results in a relatively homogeneous composition of the users. This also goes along with the fact that comparatively few women can be found in the CWS.12 Operator Tobias emphasizes that in Tabit ”EVERYONE (I: Everyone.) So EVERYONE“ (interview Tobias, para. 59) is addressed and explains: ”FOCUS ONLINERS, eh creative industry. Eh (3) But we, we try to be as w/ LITTLE ELITIST as possible, so we like/ Everyone can, eh everyone should have a place somehow, if they WANT. I think, if the, the TYPE of PERSON fits in or. Then it’s GOOD. Someone can also come here and sew, that’s also ok. It’s GOOD, ENRICHING, so (1) He or she can maybe ALSO create something next, something new with someone from the IT, something that inspires.“

Although openness in conversation is emphasized, it is not as noticeable in everyday CWS life. Sewing people do not find their way into Tabit: They are not addressed via the website, there are no events for sewers and if a sewing person got into the CWS anyway, it could happen that they felt uncomfortable if they were sewing alone among all the laptop workers (although practices of doing being open could counteract this), especially if it were a sewing woman in an environment of male laptop workers. Nevertheless, the specific composition of the coworkers, who constitute the space, also influences the communicative

12 Concrete numbers on the gender ratio of the Tabit users (as well as other user characteristics) are not available. The low number of women in Tabit was also a challenge for the recruitment of female interviewees, whereby one of the two user interviews came about with the help of the mediation of a member of the operating team.

13.2 Tensions in Relation to the True Coworking

401

atmosphere of the CWS, as I experience again and again during my field stay. Thus, I keep track of the gender composition of the present people in my field notes and also have the experience of being the only woman among the present people. There is a risk that the male-dominated atmosphere reinforces that mainly men from the ICT sector feel comfortable here.13 The two female Tabit coworkers interviewed are also aware of the industry or gender focus and addressed it in the interview, although it is not evaluated negatively, but both emphasize the quiet character of programmers and developers (see interview Tamara, paras. 28 and 69, interview Tanja, para. 102).

13.2 Tensions in Relation to the True Coworking In the image of the true coworking, the social formation of the CWS is constructed as a self-organized community in a traditional sense in Tönnies’ terms: as authentic, genuine and warm. Here, all members of the CWS actively contribute to making the CWS spaces function as work and community spaces in everyday life. Tensions arise in this image especially when the (work)community is not perceptible through social interactions or when people do not participate as community members in everyday CWS life. Thus, it has already become clear at the boundaries of the work setting concentrated mental work that people can also break the rules of the work setting and disturb the other people present by behaving loudly or by not participating in the self-organized maintenance of the spaces.

13.2.1 Self-Organized Work Community Tensions in the image of the CWS as a self-organized working group were already touched upon in Chap. 11. Thus, there are coworkers who wish for more exchange and collaboration with other users than they experience in everyday CWS life. Moreover, there is a risk of exploitation with unpaid friendship services. When the boundary between professional and private contacts blurs, the boundary between help and work is sometimes thin and it can happen that a one-

13 The

operators of CWSs are generally aware of the problem of excluding groups of people and are committed to the topics of diversity and inclusion, which are also a recurring theme at coworking barcamps.

402

13  Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life

sided service without recognizable compensation remains unpaid under the guise of help. Regarding the character of the relationships in the CWS, Iris Dzudzek (2012) pointedly states: ”In the functional distance cuddling in the network commune, the separation between personal and professional relationships often gets lost, which frequently leads to an increasing commodification of the social relationships“ (Dzudzek 2012, p. 73). Thus, there can be an instrumentalization of friendship relationships. Conversely, from the perspective of the users who help within the framework of the friendship service, there is a communitization of the market relationships. In this respect, Sargas dropout Samir also comes to the conclusion that the unpaid support of Sargas by coworkers was essential for the progress of the CWS: ”I just found it very impressive how the place has been bootstrapped from (1) eh NOTHING into a community. (I: Mhm.) Ehm (1) HOW much has been done. So this project has ehm, (1) ehm (1) COLLECTED itself a lot of people eh willing to GIVE to it a lot. SO I would usually just eh considering myself, I rent there, so I’m paying there the PRICE. And here I help eh build THIS, you know, eh half a day. (I: Mhm.) Or here, or here I clea/ I make DINNER for everybody or so. Ah so these are really small things, what people are investing here A LOT. (I: Mhm.) And MOST of them are not being paid.“ (interview Samir, para. 153)

In this quote, Samir speaks of the two different roles that he takes on as a user: Although he would actually see himself in relation to the CWS as a paying customer or tenant who uses a service, he realizes that in Sargas he acts as a helping member of the community. That this subject strategy is significant for a functioning of coworking is shown in the following Sect. 13.3.1. Another problem in the image of the self-organized working group is that the users do not get to know the other coworkers in everyday CWS life very well and learn little about the co-present others, if ”working alone together“ (Spinuzzi 2012) is the predominant mode of work. With increasing member size of the CWS, it is also difficult to know what each individual does professionally and where there could be synergies, as Sargas user Samantha addresses: ”Sometimes I’ve, I’ve struck up conversations and I’ve (1) been so sup/ so surprised with what people are working on, and like, ‘WOW, that’s really interesting. (I: Mhm.) I’ve seen you around so much, I can’t believe we only connected about this now’“ (interview Samantha, para. 92). In this regard, in both case studies, and more so in the more anonymous Sargas, users express the wish to the operators (again in the service logic) to create opportunities to learn more about the other coworkers and their professional background or to be able to exchange with them if needed. To improve this, suggestions are made regarding the provision of more informa-

13.2 Tensions in Relation to the True Coworking

403

tion about the coworkers, for example, on the Sargas member photo wall in the stairwell (cf. interview Sabine, paras. 91 ff.) or with regard to the expansion of the event offer of the respective CWSs with a focus on the professional networking of the coworkers: ”[T]hey [note AB: the operators] do events. Uh, I appreciate that extremely. I think, they could do EVEN more (1) uh a little more Get Togethers INTERNALLY, because if YOU as a person don’t approach the people, then you often don’t find out what their uh expertise is, what could I use well for synergies? (1) I would find that COOL now, if you had MORE opportunities (1) to come together and exchange: Hey, are there any points that, that don’t get on well with, where we could help you? Or vice versa. That you try to support each other MORE in this way.“

The operators of both CWSs are working on ideas to use the different expertise of the coworkers and to promote the collaboration of coworkers across the CWS more strongly, by acquiring orders or projects for the CWS as an organization, which are then carried out by coworkers (cf. interviews Tobias, paras. 64 ff., Samuel_1, paras. 93 ff.): ”[I] think, that WILL also become more and more important in the FUTURE for such coworking spaces. (1) It is THE/ that is the POWER of the coworking spaces, right. They, they can NEUTRALLY (1) offer the COMPANIES (2) COOL interdisc/ disciplinary services“ (interview Tobias, para. 64).

13.2.2 Lack of Active Participation of Users in Communal Activities Tensions in the image of the CWS as a self-organized community in general arise when not ”all people help and participate a LITTLE BIT“ (interview Till, para. 45). Be it that people behave loudly in the case of the spaces for concentrated mental work (cf. Sect. 13.1.1) or that, as Till describes, people leave the door of the Tabit Creative Space open in cold weather and he has to close it himself (interview Till, para. 45). In addition, the community is endangered when users or user groups do not ”actively“ contribute as members of this community in everyday CWS life: Be it that the dishes in the Sargas self-service kitchen are not washed or that events and activities are not attended by coworkers. Lack of participation in terms of keeping the CWS clean In relation to the cleanliness of the spaces, tensions keep arising in the image of the self-organized community, as Sargas user Sandro addresses in the interview:

404

13  Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life

”Sandro: There are always small (1) ehm (1) hm small (2) TENSIONS, that can appear based on access to some resource or ehm (1) ehm there can be/ (3) Well/ (4) MAYbe in running the place and (2) with the HYGIENE sometimes of the/ You know, like you can feel like some, (1) some DAYS people are putting a bit less effort into eh cleaning up“ I: The bathroom you mentioned. Sandro: Yeah, or/ and, eh and the kitchen. I: And the kitchen, mhm. Sandro: Eh THIS is always a never ending (1) eh SOURCE of little tensions, because eh (2) you know, some people put effort, others, they are more/ are less careful.” (interview Sandro, paras. 90 ff.)

As was noted in relation to the tensions regarding the coworking service, the Sargas self-service kitchen is not in the focus of the service, but rather constructed as a space of the self-organized community. A typical problem here are recurring piles of dishes in the sink, as there is no dishwasher available. Sargas Silent Floor user Sina takes the full sink in the self-service kitchen as an indication that other coworkers act rather in the role of customers of a service instead of as members of the community and do not wash their dishes accordingly: “Sina: And these are the people who also make themselves a cup of coffee. And that’s why (1) uh they also don’t feel like washing the cups. Because if you buy one, then you can/ don’t have to wash the CUP.” I: And uh how does it WORK then? So with the dishes? (1) When they pile up like that? Uh does someone have MERCY uh/ Sina: Sometimes, when I need a break, I just wash them all. (I: Mhm.) And otherwise, I THINK, sometimes a cleaning lady comes. So SOMETIMES they are all washed away and I didn’t do it. And (I: (laughs)) I think, it’s only me, who occasionally washes everything (laughing).“ (interview Sina, paras. 31 ff.)

Sina feels—as an intensive user of the self-service kitchen and in the role of a member of the CWS community—responsible for clearing away the dishes as a productive and at the same time lonely, unsocial break activity from time to time, instead of addressing this as a problem with the other coworkers. She also suspects that besides her, sometimes a cleaning person washes the dishes and no one else from the users. Here Sina recognizes that the CWS, despite the community

13.2 Tensions in Relation to the True Coworking

405

logic of the self-service kitchen, provides services (invisible and here visible to her) as a service provider (see the following chapter). Elsewhere, Sina notes that when she washes the dishes, the effectiveness of the work setting concentrated mental work is powerful in relation to the constitution of spaces for concentrated mental work, when she surmises that she might have disturbed other coworkers with her ”somewhat louder washing up“: ”I made a bit of noise in the kitchen earlier, because somehow/ well BECAUSE the, once again, uh the (1) um sink FULL of unwashed (1) (clicks her tongue) CUPS and, and, and plates and dishes is. (I: Mhm.) And, well, and then the washing up was a bit louder. I think that also annoyed a few people“ (interview Sina, para. 3). Here, the double logic thus inevitably leads to tensions. If the dishes are washed by a coworker (to contribute to the self-organized community), the washing person violates the rules of the work setting and thus endangers the core function, to constitute (communal) work spaces of quiet, concentrated mental work. If the coworker leaves his/her dishes without washing them up (in the logic of the service and not to endanger the core function of concentrated work space), he/she contributes to the piling up of the dishes as a problem of the self-organized community. The kitchen of the Tabit Creative Space, like that of the Sargas Silent Floor, has no dishwasher and a poster with a cat meme admonishes the coworkers with a wink to wash up themselves. Here, piling dishes are not a visible problem, which is also rated in the interviews as a sign of the functioning of the self-organized community (see interview Till, para. 56). Coworkers who put their unwashed dishes in the sink are rather the exception here, who act inconsiderately in the image of the self-organized community (in the role as customer), as user Tamara addresses: ”[S]imple example, coffee cup/ uh cup washing. There are certain ones who just put it DOWN, and I don’t think that’s so cool. So I think, if you already et/ if you already MAKE USE of the infrastructure, then, then yes (1) then look a bit after it“ (interview Tamara, para. 94). The fact that there are fewer problems in this regard in Tabit is not least due to invisible services (see Sect. 13.3.2), but also to the dishwasher in the Classic Office: ”[I]f you take a CUP from above [note AB: Classic Office], then you have to bring it back up, and the cups have their location. (I: Mhm.) And if you’re SMART, you take a cup from ABOVE, because above there’s a dishwasher. (I: (Laughs.)) And if you take one from below, then you have to wash it by hand“ (interview Thomas, para. 240). Lack of participation in events and activities As was shown in Sect. 11.2, not all coworkers have the same interest or the possibility to participate in events and activities in the CWS. This can lead to events being poorly or hardly attended by coworkers. With regard to the community-

406

13  Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life

building function, as was shown, the internal community events are of particular importance. These are usually well attended in both CWSs. In the case of Sargas, however, there are also situations at community events where low or a lack of participation of coworkers is noticeable—this is the case when it comes to voluntary assistance by coworkers during working hours. For example, cooking for the community dinner: This is done by volunteers and is relatively time-consuming (when I volunteer to cook myself, we start in the early afternoon). During my field stay, it finds little interest among the coworkers. It also happens that members of the operating team or the extended circle of friends of Sargas or participants of the Sargas workshops act as cooks. Lack of help from the users is thus compensated for within the framework of curating community. A second concrete example is a call on Facebook to make homemade apple cider on the day of the community dinner (see BP04 and screenshots of Facebook event): At 1 pm picking apples starts in the Sargas Garden, which then have to be processed. However, no volunteers show up to pick apples, so the intern Sarah picks, cleans and cooks the apples by herself. In the evening, the brewing of the cider is staged as a community-building ritual as part of the community dinner. Simon, who photographed this moment, accordingly creates a picture of the (happy) self-organized community: ”[Photo Simon] And there we made cider from the apples of the garden. (1) And you can see how everyone helps nicely AND is in a good mood and cooks something“ (interview Simon, para. 43). User Serge describes a similar event, where apple juice and apple pie were made from the apples of the Sargas Garden: ”Serge: (Figure 13.1) And this is kind of RECENT. This was eh when we had the apple picking event, not the l/ the last one, but that one month ago, more or less. […] I: What have you done with THOSE apples? Serge: I just ah ate and drank a lot of them. (Serge and I laugh) But ya, they di/ they did it in the afternoon, so I had to work, but then eh the following days I was just drinking APPLE and eh, and apple juices (I smiles) and having all kind of (smiling) apple cakes for like a couple of days, because they had to prepare and to use tho/ all these apples, they picked.“ (interview Serge, paras. 80 ff.)

Instead of helping with the apple picking, Serge expresses his solidarity by merely consuming the apple products. In the interview excerpt, Serge addresses an important issue: Here, as in the other cases described, the voluntary help is supposed to take place during working hours and thus claim the same. Insofar as

13.2 Tensions in Relation to the True Coworking

407

Fig. 13.1   Section of Sargas Garden (Photo: Serge)

the coworkers are primarily interested in using the CWS as a workspace, as subjectified workers, they hardly respond to the call for help in these cases. In the case of Tabit, a collaborative activity organized within the framework of curating did not materialize (yet) due to a lack of interest: Community manager Tom wants to organize a tournament at the football table (see Fig. 13.2) (as a communal ritual in relation to a communal artifact) and explains: ”Tom: [I] also tried, or am (laughing) working on, organizing a football tournament. That should also connect the people uh (1) uh playing and having fun is yes/ (1) uh connects PEOPLE very QUICKLY. (I: Mhm.) So uh (2) I also met my first Tabitters [note AB: Own word creation for the members of Tabit] more or less during the 1year anniversary WHILE playing football. (I: Mhm.) Uh so table football. And uh (1) yes, there is quickly uh (2) something, where, where, where you can talk to each other uh about. (1) (I: Mhm.) And it is just a, (2) how should I say, a good TOOL also for (1) for having there in the Creative Space, I think. (3) Because you can’t play it alone. So you CAN, but it’s not so cool, because it has four things. You need FOUR hands to really play cool/ WELL with it.“

408

13  Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life

Fig. 13.2   Football table in the Tabit Creative Space (Photo: Tom) I: (2) Mhm. (1) And the football tournament, WASN’T that supposed to have happened already, or/ Tom: That uh is DIFFICULT, the people, they have their start-ups and their stuff and uh difficult, en/ to set a DATE. Uh it started so to speak Wednesday, tried to get ALL uh Wednesday between eleven and one to play the first rounds through/ to LET them play through, uh with email reminder and everything possible. Uh then it didn’t work out so well. (Laughs.) Yes, and now uh it’s still WORKING.” (interview Tom, paras. 62 ff.)

For Tom, the football table represents a suitable “TOOL” for connecting people, because its affordance entails a communal activity. As a reason for the difficult realization of the project of the table football tournament, Tom cites the focus of the coworkers on their own work and thus “their start-ups and their stuff” and the difficulty of finding a common date. This again shows that the CWS is primarily a workspace. With regard to the attendance of evening events by coworkers, Tabit operator Tobias emphasizes that he has no expectation of the users that they use their workplace also as an event location, “[b]ecause (1) who feels like being all day and still in the evening at the same place. So (1) no matter how COOL the PLACE IS” (interview Tobias, paras. 177 f.). Although the workplace as a place of (evening) events is perceived by some users as an advantage, attending events at the workplace can also be experienced as exhausting and monotonous (see ibid.).

13.3  Dealing With Tensions

409

13.3 Dealing With Tensions Although one might assume that the described tensions entail potential for conflict, little is reported of conflicts in the CWS in the user interviews and I also experience hardly any disputes in the field. Accordingly, user Thorsten states for Tabit: “I can NOT somehow remember that there were ever conflicts or something. (1) Not at all. (2) (I: Mhm.) (1) CONFLICT-FREE ZONE” (interview Thorsten, para. 117). The fact that the tensions in everyday CWS life hardly lead to major conflicts is due to the fact that many of the examples described endanger the core functions of CWSs little. On the other hand, strategies for dealing with the tensions are used by both the coworkers and the operators. Specifically, the social construct of communitization is activated by both sides to absorb tensions in everyday CWS life: While the coworkers act as members of the (self-organized) communitization, authentic communal atmospheres are produced by the operators as part of the curating process to absorb tensions. This will be discussed in more detail in the following two sections.

13.3.1 Coworkers Act as Community Members The previous explanations of the tensions in relation to the service of providing work space have repeatedly also revealed the individual handling of the coworkers with these ambivalences in everyday CWS life. Of importance here is the insight that the users hardly, as one might think, assume the role of paying customers, who would demand the performance of the service and express criticism in this regard14. Instead, they act in the role of members of the (self-organized) community. In other words, the true coworking absorbs the tensions that can arise in relation to the commodity coworking (understood as the service of work and community space). Different practices are applied here: Solve by oneself: First, users become active themselves to repair broken things, procure missing things or to take over tasks of the operators, such as the onboarding of new members. This also applies to the observance of the rules of the respective work settings, here especially those of the quiet work spaces, where

14 Tristan is the one who most likely assumes the customer role in the interview, who did not decide to work at Tabit himself, but has not yet expressed his points of criticism to the operators: In his case, the strategy downplaying comes into play (see following explanations).

410

13  Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life

it also happens that rule violations are openly addressed: “There was once, eh ONCE a couple of people that were working there and they were working together, so they were talking, they were (whistling)‘füufüufüu‘. (I: Mhm.) (1) And there was someone saying:‘EH, (1) this is work, this is the SILENT (1) ROOM‘ (smiles)” (interview Sebastian_1, para. 63). The coworkers also see the possibility to become active themselves and, for example, replace uncomfortable seating with their own furniture (see Sect. 13.1.1).15 Do not address, show understanding, downplay: Secondly, tensions or shortcomings are not addressed. The fact that the users accept restrictions in the service work space and do not openly complain was evident in the example of the events, which affect the work spaces of the coworkers (see Sect. 13.1.1). In this case, the necessity seems to be silently acknowledged that hosting events is another and necessary source of income for CWSs (see Fabbri 2016). Likewise, limitations in the quality of the furniture are accepted by flex-desk users (as a disadvantage of desk sharing for the advantage of being able to use different work settings), which could be avoided with a fixed-desk membership. Tensions are also not addressed, insofar as they are “small things” (interview Sina, para. 87) or the concern is seen with distance as less disturbing: “I just SWALLOW it somehow. So it’s a bit difficult to say, yes. No. (I: Mhm.) I haven’t felt the need yet. […] In the moment it bothers me a lot and afterwards it doesn’t bother me anymore (laughs)” (interview Theo, paras. 320-322). Also, dissatisfaction is not addressed with the operators, in order not to strain the close personal relationship with members of the operating team, as in the case of Tristan, who is friends with some people and comments: “The fuss is too much for me for the few points I have” (interview Tristan, para. 14). Moreover, work-focused users who are passive members of the community do not feel in the position to express criticism and make demands, as Sargas user Sina reflects on the different roles in relation to the CWS images:

15 Here,

the possibility is emphasized, while the implementation of placing one’s own furniture in the CWS is reported to me less. An example is Samantha, who built a standing desk for herself in her old CWS (see interview Samantha, para. 110). Samir, who leaves Sargas to work from home, would have had the possibility to exchange his chair as a fixeddesk user, but did not do so. He emphasizes the future improvement of the seat in the home office: “Ehm as it is a/ yeah MY place and my thing, I would get a better chair than I have here, which is a Sargas chair. (I: Mhm.) I always thought maybe buy the chair, but didn’t really do it. (I: Mhm.) Eh but I will do the step now” (interview Samir, para. 113).

13.3  Dealing With Tensions

411

“That’s, that’s the thing, that’s why I’m reluctant to express criticism, because I’m not the most hyperactive member myself. And that’s why I think to myself, then it’s also stupid if I come up with criticism. (1) I mean, I don’t actually want to see myself as: ‘I pay, and for that I get SERVICE’, but I see myself as part of a COMMUNITY, but I don’t feel like I’m the most active part of a community. (I: Mhm.) That’s why I find it a bit stupid if I criticize there. (I: Mhm.) Sure, I could contribute something, but as I said, I’m not active enough for that. I actually come here more to WORK. And, yes, that’s why (1) I get involved somewhere else somehow, voluntarily or something, but not for here.” (interview Sina, paras. 141 f.)

The perception as a passive member of the community (and not as a customer of a service) forbids her to criticize. From this it can also be concluded: In the course of self-selection, users who act solely as customers and are dissatisfied with the service coworking would criticize the operators or leave the CWS to look for a suitable work place for them. Reference to self-responsibility as a member of the community: A possible exclusion of members of the community within the service community space is only directly problematized in the interview with Scott and Sophie (see Sect. 13.1.2). In the case of Sargas, reference is also made again and again to the existing curated events for communitization, which can be attended to get in contact with other users. Here it is the responsibility of the users (as members of the selforganized community) to attend them (or not): “THIS does not depend on the, on the, the managers, but it just depends on the people, because there are already social events (1) and I mean, if people don’t come there, I mean, they miss the, the/ I mean, they are not interested and I mean, they are FINE without (1) HAVING/ I mean without eh being part of the community, so. There’s not something I would BLAME Sargas to not to do basically.” (interview Serge, para. 187)

Self-responsibility is also emphasized in relation to the hygiene of the spaces in both case studies: Deficiencies in cleanliness are not understood by the coworkers as a failure to provide the service, but in the image of the self-organized community attributed to the other coworkers (see Sect. 13.2.2). Excusing by appealing aesthetics: Finally, deficiencies in relation to the quality and ergonomics of the furniture, as shown, are excused or downplayed by the appealing aesthetics. The imperfect furniture of the aestheticized work settings give the spaces “charm” (interview Sabine, para. 77) or “flair” (interview Theo, para. 195) and are rated as nice (see Sect. 13.1.1). The imperfection underlines

412

13  Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life

the image of the organically grown and authentic bottom-up “indie place […] Totally BOOTstrapped” (interview Samir, paras. 99 f.), which is positively highlighted against a top-down “fancy coworking” (ibid., para. 101). Authenticity thus has a significant value in relation to the meaning of the collaborative workspaces for the users: The coworkers are looking for authentic places to work (Bender 2013, p. 12; Liegl 2011, p. 183) and the CWS spaces and their communal atmospheres convey the feeling that they can be their authentic selves (Garrett et al. 2017, p. 837 f.). The experienced authenticity and thus the “personality” (Scott, interview Scott_Sophie, para. 66) of a place becomes a distinctive feature to other CWSs or other forms of flexible workspaces, as Scott describes in relation to the previous experience with CWSs in another city: “[T]here’s SOMEthing that like coming from [name of the city] which is a city that is like everything is like so (1) like kind of pristine or like super/ I mean ALL the offices are like eh,‘Oh that’s super PLAYFUL, super COOL office.’ But then in reality you can/ they have no personality (1) actually. You know? (1) ‘cause most of them, I mean you, you know (1) what to expect from, (1) I mean like eh (1) THEY are DIFFERENT but they are kind of the same, you know? Like they try to pretend they are different, but, you know, like they are kind of PREMADE, you know? (I: Mhm.) And (1) and HERE it feels/ you can really feel like eh it has its own style. Eh (1) the/ We felt that the cul/ the culture of the people here it felt a little bit more like a community more than, (1) hm/ I mean also like (1) eh that I think people here care also about other things than only like eh (I: Working/) making, YEAH, working on creating your company or start-up or something like that. (I: Mhm.) You know, (1) we were at some other eh coworking space. Eh there was like only startups. (I: Mhm.) And it was/ We, I don’t know, we don’t like that.” (Scott, interview Scott_Sophie, para. 66)

In the interview excerpt, Scott makes it clear that aestheticized workspaces alone are not enough for him: Instead of interchangeable, superficial, prefabricated workspaces that are standardized and without personality and that are characteristic of top-down organized CWSs (see Sect. 2.2.3), Scott prefers workspaces like those of Sargas, whose own style, own culture and community of people who share more than work, he can clearly feel. At the end of the interview, he summarizes again: “[T]he most different thing is this, that it feels more like HANDmade than most other places” (Scott, interview Scott_Sophie, para. 306). Authenticity seems to express itself in that Sargas as a bottom-up organized work place feels “HANDmade” and not, as in the quote before attributed to the standardized offices, as “PREMADE”. Nevertheless, this authenticity of the handmade is staged within the framework of curating community, as the following chapter will show in more detail.

13.3  Dealing With Tensions

413

The described practices of the coworkers lead to the fact that the members of the operating teams indicate in the interviews that they receive little feedback from the coworkers in terms of criticism or suggestions for change.16 In this regard, Community Manager Samuel wants to establish the Community Breakfast as a platform for feedback from the coworkers. That the coworkers also act as self-solving community members here, Samuel points out in the interview for an incident at the first Community Breakfast, where it was found that a new kettle for the Silent Floor is needed: SLOWLY it [the Community Breakfast] will also transform and (1) WHAT do you want to do? What is missing here? What is cool in Sargas, what not? And so on. And to, to this community of/ Well, last time someone already said: ‘I need a/ i/ I will buy a kettle.‘ (I: Mhm.) I said: ‘We will.‘ —‘No, I will.‘ (I smiles) So sometimes it is good that the/ the person thought: ‘Okay.‘ Because it is good, he feels then: Ah (I: Mhm.) You know? It is eh COOL there too, you know. I found it very cool that this already happened the first time and so on.“ (interview Samuel_1, para. 146)

Here he highlights the coworker as an actively acting community member in a positive way, who becomes self-active in the logic of the Silent Floor as a space of self-organized community and whose commitment is rewarded with a positive feeling. The strengthening of the sense of belonging of the users as members of the CWS community is therefore also a strategy of curating, as shown in the following.

16 Feedback

regarding deficiencies in the service relate to problems that cannot be satisfactorily solved by the users themselves, such as the dripping faucet in the Sargas self-service kitchen (where Sven has set up a provisional solution that is not sufficient, see transcript of conversation Sven, para. 8) or the boxes in the Silent Floor, whose owners are not known. Intern Sarah gives an example of this: “[I]t was one GUY who came up to me to say: ‘Okay, can I give you a little bit feedback? And don’t take it too HARD, but there are some small things in the/ on the second floor like the, the/‘I don’t know the English word for it, but eh the thing where the water comes out a/ above the sink. […] there the water was kicking everywhere, and about like BOXES in the space, what doesn’t really look nice. But it weren’t ours. So I communicated to, to Samuel“ (interview Sarah, paras. 84 ff.). The user’s feedback is careful and relativizing, which indicates that he does not want to endanger the communal relationship (and only cautiously refers to his customer role in this respect).

414

13  Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life

13.3.2 Curating: Staging Authentic Communal Atmospheres The fact that the tensions that arise in relation to true coworking do not become conflictual and coworking works in everyday life even without the active participation of the users as community members, is in turn due to the service coworking: Thus, the commodity coworking absorbs the tensions that can arise in relation to true coworking (understood as self-organized “authentic community” (cf. Garrett et al. 2017)). Techniques of curating support the image of functioning communitization by staging authentic communal atmospheres. This is done through the design of the non-human space as well as through the self-presentation of the curators17 (cf. Löw 2015). This influences the feelings of the users (cf. Illouz 2018): In addition to belonging in relation to the community, a feeling of noncommitment is also conveyed, which gives the users the freedom not to have to participate in communal activities and rituals. The social formations in the CWS are in this respect to be understood as curated post-traditional communitizations, whose binding force is seduction (cf. Sect. 3.5.2). The curating of community is therefore not only about promoting communal atmospheres (cf. Sect. 8.4), but even more about their staging, so that despite loose social ties, an affectual belonging is conveyed (Hitzler et al. 2008, p. 17 f.). Crucial for the effectiveness of the curating of community within the logic of service is that the communal atmospheres feel genuine, emotional and authentic in the sense of Tönnies (cf. Sect. 13.3.1) and are thus staged as such within the framework of aesthetic work, without the staging itself becoming recognizable. How are authentic communal atmospheres that are at the same time non-binding staged, without being perceived as made and artificial and thus as societization? In this respect, various techniques of curating can be found: First, invisible services come into play in relation to creating order and cleanliness, which the coworkers do not perceive in the image of the self-organized community. The curating of community creates second a binding non-commitment, so that there is no compulsion to interact and participate in events and other social activities (according to the motto “Just take your pick”) and these are still held as communitizing ritual. Third, the (self-organized) community is repeatedly invoked and the community image is thus communicatively established in the communica-

17 This

way, the coworking hosts as curators are also experienced as authentic and thus as shaping the space and cannot be easily replaced (cf. Sect. 12.3).

13.3  Dealing With Tensions

415

tion by the operators. And fourth, the personal, random and imperfect are used as design elements to make the atmospheres appear authentic. Invisible services: The flexibility of the coworking concept and the associated fluctuation of users depend on the functioning of the few rules: The clean-desk policy ensures that the users can transform the places into their own immediately, without having to worry about the leftovers of the previous occupants. The same applies, for example, to the use of the shared infrastructure, such as meeting rooms, toilets, kitchen or coffee machine. If, in the image of the selforganized community, the users do not take responsibility for the maintenance of the socially shared space, but rather behave like customers (especially because of the flexibility and high fluctuation, which favor responsibility diffusion), invisible services are central for the smooth operation of the CWS. That the CWS is clean and the flexible tables are tidy, that the coffee machine is always serviced and refilled, or that the numerous plants in Sargas do not dry out, is organized as an invisible service by the CWS. For example, Steve is responsible for watering the plants on the Silent Floor and other small tasks in Sargas and can work there for free in return.18 From an outside perspective, his work on behalf of the operating team is invisible and he appears like a “conventional” coworker. In addition, there are cleaning staff in both CWSs who regularly clean the premises. Part of the community manager’s task field is also, according to Tabit community

18 Steve

tells me in the interview: “I’m responsible for water in the plants in the second floor. (I: Mhm.) (1) I don’t ah/ I am in a, in a different position I think, from the other coworkers, who are paying for a desk you know, because I am really friends with them, so I have these eh other responsibilities. But I think, (1) everyone feels somehow responsible for the space to keeping it. And if I wasn’t doing this water in the plants, someone else in the second floor would do it, no problem” (interview Steve, para. 65). Here, he makes his special position as a friend of the operating team clear, who can work for free in the CWS in exchange for taking on (informal) responsibilities. At the same time, he emphasizes in the last sentence in the image of the self-organized community that someone else would water the plants on the Silent Floor if he didn’t do it. That self-organization in terms of watering plants works less well in practice, for example, operator Nathan from N-Space tells me, whom I meet during the field stay in the Sargas Café. I note that Nathan notices that “the plants in the back corner have hardly any leaves left. He identifies a typical CWS problem with this. In his space, they tried plant sponsorships and competitions, which of four plants with the same starting conditions grows the fastest. Nevertheless, the plants died.” (Field notes AP07, para. 5). In N-Space, the watering of plants is now taken over by the cleaning staff (cf. ibid.). The CWS Tabit, on the other hand, uses plants sparingly in the Creative Space.

416

13  Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life

manager Tom, to keep it “a bit TIDY” in the CWS (interview Tom, para. 108), to dispose of the garbage (interview Tom, para. 19), to clean and refill the barista coffee machine (ibid., para. 70) or to make sure that people do not leave their things lying around (ibid., para. 128). The feeling of a functioning authentic selforganized community is supported in this respect by the fact that the services are performed in the background and are not always recognized as such by coworkers who draw the picture of the self-organized community (cf. Sect. 12.1). Binding non-commitment: In everyday CWS life, practices of doing being open as a social instrument of curating foster communal atmospheres and a sense of belonging (together). And at the same time, they also create a binding noncommitment, which is characteristic of post-traditional communities. This is expressed in the following statement by Sargas user Sebastian: “I feel comfortable with this sharing space, but at the same time I have my own space, my privacy, so (I: Mhm.) if I nee/ need or want to speak with persons, I CAN, if I don’t I just WORK and (1) ya, (I: Mhm.) it’s nice” (interview Sebastian_2, para. 47). The binding non-commitment expresses that the users can decide for themselves to what extent they want to get involved in the CWS community or to what extent they want to maintain autonomy and independence, as Garrett et al. (2017, p. 837) also note for their study: “[A]utonomy and relatedness […] can be complementary”. Already in 2011, Welter and Olma also point out that the “secret and […] appeal” of coworking is “to make collaboration and exchange possible, but not to make them compulsory” (Welter and Olma 2011, p. 73). In this context, Sargas user Sandro discusses very precisely the role of the operator team and the function of curating within binding non-commitment: “I THINK, there is a good mix of eh (2) of eh everyone being quite independent (1) (I: Mhm.) eh at least/ WELL, (1) I U/ The good thing is that you have also a big TEAM of people working here or who know each other, do different projects, eh (1) the, the ones who actually WORK here (1) eh as in eh FOR Sargas (I: Mhm.) Eh (breaths) and eh THEY already bring a bit of the TEAM spirit into the/ on the community feeling into the, the building. You know it’s not like eh, eh, there are (1) RANDOMLY eh employees, who don’t really ehm interact much with each other or who don’t know each other well. Eh HERE you really have this, this sense of community already from the people running eh the place. And I think that extends them to the GUESTS or the (1) ehm (1) the coworkers who come here and who each have their own projects and are quite/ working quite independently from each other, but ehm (2) FEEL like you’re a part of (1) ehehehm community environment somehow. And it’s easy to engage with it or it’s easy to do your own thing. (I: Mhm.) Eh there is no pressure in this sense, but it’s good for me, that they keep (1) eh DOING and inviting people to also contribute more in eh/ as a community. Even though I, I’m not

13.3  Dealing With Tensions

417

doing as much as I would LIKE to, (1) ehm, but over time eh I think I will, I will try to contribute also a bit more. (I: Mhm.) Eh but I enjoy the fact, that there is this eh, also this community spirit here. (I: Mhm.) Ehm, (1) but also full respect for people’s independence and privacy (1) ehm so that’s for me a good atmosphere.” (interview Sandro, para. 31)

The members of the operating team do not act as interchangeable role players (cf. Sect. 12.3), but radiate the “sense of community”, “community spirit” or the feeling of belonging (together), which, as Sandro puts it, transfers to the coworkers: They feel the belonging while maintaining their freedom and privacy, not having to participate in the community, which is not sanctioned. In this way, it is achieved within the framework of curating communal atmospheres that the coworkers have the freedom to decide for themselves to what extent they engage in the possibilities for social interactions and, for example, visit social meeting points or participate in community-building CWS activities or whether they consume the communal atmosphere (in the role of the passive community member). This binding non-commitment is associated with a “spirit” (interview Tobias, para. 146) of openness, “[s]omehow just joining in for BREAKFAST or LUNCH or, (1) so CASUAL” (ibid., para. 148.). The barriers to participation in communal activities and events are low and non-binding. The offer of events and activities is there—the coworkers have the free choice of how they use it (cf. also Fabbri 2016). This also applies to participation in formally organized events: “If it FITS, then it FITS” (interview Tobias, para. 178)—there is no expectation on part of the operators regarding participation of the coworkers in the events (cf. ibid.). While external events are also attended by external people, the internal community events and activities are focused on the coworkers.19 Here, the lack of participation can become a problem. However, this happens, as shown, rarely and refers here mainly to the assistance during working hours, during which the coworkers constitute the CWS primarily as a workspace. Little or no support is here at the same time compensated for by the curating, which stages the activities nevertheless as communal rituals (cf. Sect. 13.2.2). Thus, the present study shows that there can also be situations in which no coworkers voluntarily participate in the context of engaging (cf. Garrett et al. 2017)—here, the curating is of particular importance to make up for the lack of engagement.

19 As

an expression of openness, the internal community events are usually also accessible to non-members, as long as they have a connection with the CWS members (operators or coworkers).

418

13  Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life

Through binding non-commitment, it is possible that coworkers consume the communal atmospheres and a feeling of belonging associated with them (and experience them as authentic (cf. Garrett et al. 2017)), even though they hardly participate actively (cf. Sect. 12.4). Conversely, the principle of binding non-commitment seems to be also the vehicle through which the work-focused users do not insist on the service CWS when it comes to deficiencies in relation to the service work. Instead, they feel as a (passive) member of the community and accept it when services are not (sufficiently) fulfilled—along the lines of: “We don’t force you to anything and you don’t make any demands yourself.” In this way, CWSs manage to combine contradictory goals: Thus, the coworkers can satisfy their need for social bonding while maintaining their autonomy and independence (cf. Garrett et al. 2017). The principle “Just take your pick” does not only apply to the events, but also to the offer of different work settings, which allows work-focused people not to be pressured into social interactions with others and to retreat into spaces for concentrated mental work to work.20 Binding non-commitment does not only relieve those coworkers who primarily want to do their work in the CWS. Also community-oriented people have the possibility to retreat into the spaces for concentrated mental work if needed, to escape social interactions. Curated conveying of a community image: In communication, the members of the operating teams at both CWSs refer less to the customer service provider relationship, but rather to the image of the (self-organized or curated) CWS community. For example, Tabit operator Tabea, when she talks about the handling of rules in the CWS: “So the BEST thing is if everyone does a little bit of something, or. (I: Mhm.) (1) That actually doesn’t work badly. (2) And we don’t want to have everywhere uh (1) Pro/ Prohibition signs and instructions, so (Tabea and I laugh) You don’t want to do that either. […] So you don’t want to always be like, YES, so FINGER POINTING, uh, (1) how do you say, so the REMINDER NOTES and (laughing) so you don’t want to have everywhere, that’s not so inviting.” (interview Tabea, paras. 74 ff.)

“Prohibition signs and instructions” disturb the image of the self-organized community. In addition, too many rules, according to Tabea, are uninviting—a feeling that apparently should not be created by any means, if it makes the CWS community less attractive. As operators of Tabit, Tabea as well as Tobias themselves

20  As

shown, also with the possible consequence that social isolation can occur despite being at a communal place, if no other interactive spaces are visited (see Sect. 13.1.2).

13.3  Dealing With Tensions

419

use the terms of “curation” or “curating” (interview Tobias, paras. 102, 156, 206; interview Tabea, para. 98), when it comes to strengthening the communitization by promoting social interactions. In this regard, Sargas community manager Samuel emphasizes in the interview that in most cases CWSs are “ALMOST only shared workspaces” of working for oneself alongside each other (interview Samuel_1, para. 116) and thus highlights the special importance of curating for Sargas, where creating a familial atmosphere is central: “Coworking means working alone. (laughs) […] Not for us. For us, uh we, we do, do our BEST, that it/ (1) N/ of course everyone does what they want. And there are people who only work alone. And want to work alone. (I: Mhm.) But at least in many/ feel, feel they are part of something. (1) Yes. Yes, ei/ in a v/ of a family, that is very important here. (I: Mhm.) And NOT part of a business. (1) So and, and I think, THAT is something that (1) Sargas distinguishes from other spaces a lot too. (I: Mhm.) So this is not about Bi/ about, about, about business here. (1) About accelerator, about pitch. (1) About pitching. Investors, blablabla. Goes/ CAN also go/ happen. So many projects have started here, have success afterwards. (1) But it is much more about, about FIRST creating the familial atmosphere, getting to know people personally, THEN fruitful projects can be developed, interesting projects can be developed too. So (1) ALSO something that changes society, not just about, that’s why we do THAT, to make money, but we are/ want to still do something, something cool here. (1) I think that brings the other flair for the, for the whole thing. Of course then/ finances are not going SO well as d/ as it would be, if we just said, we are here B/ Ba/ Accelerator and invite people to do that. (I: Mhm.) But (1) that brings this other (1) climate.” (interview Samuel_1, paras. 116 f.)

In his quote, Samuel highlights the previously characterized binding non-commitment, within which persons who want to can also “only work alone” (but not because they have to—this is ensured by the curating). The curating is now a means of connecting the coworkers and creating a familial sense of belonging: Thus, Sargas makes the coworkers “feel they are part of something […] of a family” or creates, as Samuel says later, a “familial atmosphere”—this in contrast to other CWSs, where the “business” has priority. This feeling or atmosphere (or as Samuel also describes it: “flair” or “climate”) is focused on the image of the family as a private traditional communitization.21 In Samuel’s description, this forms

21 The

operators could be attributed a parental role in the image of the family as a metaphor, the coworkers those of the children (with different ages, experiences and interests). In contrast to the family, however, the affiliation to the CWS community is voluntary and temporary, so that it rather corresponds to a curated post-traditional communitization (cf. following Sect. 14.2).

420

13  Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life

the foundation for societization within the framework of joint projects. At the same time, it is also a product of societization within the framework of the service coworking, with which money is to be earned, but which is not as important as it would be in a business-oriented accelerator. The interview excerpts with Tabea and Samuel illustrate how the communication about the CWS constructs certain images of the community. While Tabea emphasizes the self-organized community, Samuel refers more to the curated communitization in the quote. Overall, it is noticeable that the written and oral communication emanating from the CWSs addresses the self-organized community particularly strongly, supported by a casual communication style. This is not only evident in the analog communication, but also in the virtual space, such as on the CWSs’ website as a platform for conveying the curated image of the community.22 For example, on the Sargas website it says: “Sargas is a Salmstadt collective, where diversity, self-organization and social exchange are lived. The community develops new formats of collaborative research and development together” (Sargas 2016a). Here, keywords are listed that are oriented towards the self-organized community: “collective”, “community”, “together” and “collaborative” as emphasis on the common; “diversity” in relation to the coworking value of openness; “self-organization”, “social exchange”, “research and development” as processes of the joint activities in the CWS, which are more than just working for oneself alongside each other. Another communication channel in the case of Sargas is the welcome email to new coworkers: Right at the beginning of the relationship building, clear images of the self-organized community and the family or the home are addressed: “Hello there, welcome!, We are glad you decided to become a part of Sargas family. We gathered some useful information that will help you find your way around the space and community. […] Since we are self-organised everybody in the community is equally responsible for taking care of the space. Please have this always in mind.

22 Insofar

as the website is also the first point of contact for interested new users, the message conveyed and the associated image of the community created have an important significance (see also Sect. 9.2).

13.3  Dealing With Tensions

421

Make yourself comfortable, find a homey place at Sargas and dive into your projects. […]“ (Welcome email Sargas)

The email ends with the invitation that the new members should make themselves comfortable. The statement reminds of staying at foreign apartments, when the hosts encourage you to feel at home. The coworkers are invited to make Sargas their own space, which is familiar and where they feel comfortable and where they can work optimally. As a further and last example of the communication from the operators’ side, the ”terms and conditions“ are considered, which are noted in the online registration tool of the CWS management software in the case of Tabit and to which new coworkers are supposed to commit themselves. Here, the images of the customer service provider relationship as societization (with regard to the formal structure, insofar as terms and conditions are part of a service) on the one hand and communitization (with regard to the content) on the other hand are played with. Thus, the service offer (”What we offer to you“) not only entices with low prices, WiFi, free coffee and tea and the possibility to print, but also by activating positive feelings: Tabit is described as a ”lovely working space“ or ”fun place to work“ and the members of the operating team as ”friendly and welcoming“, while the other users are ”creative and open minds“. The offer is contrasted with relatively open demands on the users (”What we expect in return“). Essentially, these relate to tidying up and keeping the place clean and address the users as members of the community of purpose, who, following the clean-desk policy, should also leave the CWS as they found it. The last demand ”For you to work in an easygoing and friendly environment“ is actually not one, but rather serves to activate the positive feelings again, which are suggested by working in Tabit. Thus, working in a relaxed and friendly environment where one feels comfortable is promised here. Staging of the personal, unfinished, random and imperfect: For the two CWSs examined, it is characteristic that their premises are experienced by the users as mostly aesthetically appealing and authentic, which, as shown, in turn excuses deficits in terms of functionality and quality of the non-human space by the coworkers (cf. Sect. 13.3.1). The authentically experienced atmosphere is supported by the fact that the design of the non-human space focuses on the individual, personal, unfinished, random and imperfect, which in the case of Sargas is also repeatedly associated with a characteristic Salmstadt aesthetic (cf. Sect. 7.2.2). Thus, users comment on the effect of the design of the premises:

422

13  Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life

”[Note AB: on the furnishing of the Tabit Creative Space] [T]hat is probably NOTHING (1) THEY BOUGHT for it, but it was somewhere FOUND or something. (laughs, I laughs along) (1) Or maybe found, that (1) maybe to the (?yard) sometime somebody found it and someone THOUGHT: Yeah cool, we’ll take that, that fits here. (1) Don’t know how it exactly came ABOUT.“ (interview Tarek, paras. 202 f.) ”Doesn’t have to have every kind of LUXURY either. Just, it doesn’t need (1) uh (1) MARBLE floors and everything like that. But it should LOOK like a bit uh (1) a bit like it looks now. Like with chairs that don’t all match and (1) uh/ [refers to different chairs in the meeting room where the interview is conducted] These are two IKEA models, but, but uh (1) you COULDN’T imagine that in a corporate office, that somehow four chairs are in a meeting room and none of them actually fit together. (1) And THAT is not at all, no problem. It has a CHARM and also suits the people who are here, who also spread a bit of individualism. (I: Mhm.) Because they all work on something DIFFERENT. (1) Uh (1) from that point of view I would THERE, I think it’s really well solved there.“ (interview Till, para. 84) ”I think it has, it LOOKS (1) provisional. (1) Like that. (I: Mhm.) So it doesn’t look like someone came with an interior designer. (2) Uh (2) maybe there’s a lot more behind it than you now, (2) than SHO/ than it seems. Maybe that’s exactly what’s intended, like, that it (2) a bit/ I think it looks a bit PUT TOGETHER so to speak. (I: Mhm.) So not/ (2) I mean, you have that very often in Salmstadt, that they, (1) that there are sofas in cafés or different, (1) different tables with different chairs thrown together. A bit like that here TOO. (3) Yeah. I think it looks a bit improvised. (I: Mhm.) NOT provisional, improvised. Maybe that fits better.“ (interview Sabine, para. 83)

The spatial arrangements evoke feelings of the handmade, imperfect, random, improvised among the users. That the spaces are materially curated and atmospheres staged, sometimes remains hidden. Nevertheless, some coworkers also recognize the intended staging of the atmospheres, as Sabine explicitly addresses, for example. Thus, the design of the non-living space in both cases is anything but improvised and random, but with regard to the effect of the atmospheres. In this respect, Tabit operator Tabea explains that the operators had a certain space character in mind when setting up the Creative Space, which they wanted to create: ”Tabea: So in the lower, in the Creative Space, we deliberately kept to the RETRO style. There we have the/ The walls we painted so that uh (1) a cozy atmosphere is created, that is what we intended. So a WARM atmosphere even more. (I: Mhm.) I don’t know if you can see that. (Flipping, pointing to photo, see Figure  13.3) For example, the seating area. (I:Yes, exactly.) Mhm. (1) Uh, that’s actually all very deliberate, that now there (1) THE/ (1) That’s actually funny the sofas, that they have the same color again, that’s more or less coincidence. (Tabea and I laugh)

13.3  Dealing With Tensions

423

Fig. 13.3   Sofa corner in the Tabit Creative Space (Photo: Tabea) I: Where did you get them from anyway? Tabea: We bought them at the Brocki [note AB: Swiss second-hand store]. (I: Mhm.) Yes. That’s (?because of the seating area) we bought everything ourselves. There’s always someone who came. I organized the chair. Then there’s/ TWO went again with the car and brought the sofa home and/ Or someone had the table at home. So that’s all VERY/ I mean, that’s really VERY uh, everything happened bottom-up. And uh (1) the tables, the work tables in the Creative Space, we borrowed them from a second-hand shop. (I: Mhm.) They would be way too expensive if we bought them. We have some kind of agreement, I think a barter deal we have with them or something. (I: Mhm.) (2) And the floor/ So we changed some things on the/ on the SPACE before we moved in. We sanded and repainted the floor, which is also dark. So, like, in order for the atmosphere to be created at all, we had to take some measures (1) to/. “(interview Tabea, paras. 82 ff.)

The atmosphere of coziness and warmth was therefore decisive for the design of the Creative Space. In relation to the sofa corner, however, it becomes apparent that—although it was designed ”very consciously“—the concrete realization was accidental and not professionally planned in advance by interior designers

424

13  Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life

in every detail. This gives the furnishing the personal touch, which is also underlined by the fact that the operators chose the furnishing according to their own taste, as Tabea explains elsewhere in relation to the barista coffee machine: ”[F] or all facilities, we buy from WHAT we find OURSELVES the coolest (I: Mhm.) That we also LIKE to, to LIVE like this“ (interview Tabea, paras. 47 f.). Similarly, Sargas operator Samuel emphasizes the intended affective effect of the space design, to create a familial and cozy atmosphere and ”that you create a space that you COME here and feel at home, right?“ (interview Samuel_1, para. 87). Aesthetic design elements that are used in the context of material curating are cleanliness, art elements, plants and the change of the spaces (see Sect. 7.2). Samuel explains about the latter: ”Yes, I find it pretty eh FAMILIAR, the atmosphere here. (I: Mhm.) (1) And, yes, I like it, the g/ In comparison to other coworking spaces that I have seen, here it is so cozy, although we do not have the best chairs or we have the best tables, but there are hi/ here many plants and we take care that the space also eh always looks different, or we change that constantly. (I: Mhm.) And eh also the PLANTS and so. […] That makes this (clicks his tongue) a bit (1) relaxed feeling, although the people here also work concentrated.“

Besides the plants, which shape the spaces of Sargas and their external appearance markedly, the constant change23 of the spatial arrangements are a means of curating, to evoke a ”relaxed feeling“ despite concentrated working atmosphere: Instead of representing a contradiction, concentrated working atmosphere and familial atmosphere seem to go hand in hand in Sargas. In the quote, Samuel also addresses that the cozy atmosphere seems to compensate for the lack of quality of the furnishing—a strategy that was also described in Sect. 13.3.1 for the users.

23 Also

in Tabit, the constant change of the CWS is a characteristic element of curating. As a symbol for this, community manager Tom photographs a construction sign in front of the window of the Tabit Creative Space. As an intern who has worked in the CWS for four months, he does not only evaluate the change positively and explains: “ALWAYS everywhere somewhere something new somehow. But eh (1) it/ We DO NOT have any (1) structures. We do not have defined any processes per se (1). And there is always a new REFRIGERATOR. Or somehow (1) eh a special(inc.)/ Also the, (1) the whole environment changes again and again a bit. (I: Mhm.) A little, very, very little. (1) Or sometimes MUCH more. So then somehow a new PLANT comes, now, is not, maybe NOT so eh elemental, but has nevertheless a big influence on, on the SPACE feeling. (1) And eh (2) yes, so with the, with the conversion somehow also, that, that simply nothing is fixed. So it will, there are chairs pushed around, also for the EVENTS. (I: Mhm.) And that, that is also good like this. Eh (2) yes. And again you always experience something new” (interview Tom, paras. 41 f.).

13.4 Interim Conclusion: Tensions in the Coworking Space Everyday Life

425

13.4 Intermediate Conclusion: Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life This chapter showed which tensions arise in everyday CWS life with regard to the double logic of communitization (the true coworking) and societization (the commodity coworking) with a view to the core functions of work and community and how these are dealt with by the operators and users. Fig. 13.4 summarizes the tensions and how to deal with them in a diagram again. It became apparent that the tensions in everyday CWS life are diverse. They can relate more to the core function of community space or to the work space and lead to hardly any open conflicts. Here, it can be assumed that users who experience greater tensions and/or refer exclusively to their customer role leave the CWS instead of resolving conflicts, due to the flexibility and voluntariness in relation to the membership. In addition, as was worked out, tensions are defused by activating images of the functioning and authentic self-organized communitization: By feeling like community members, they act as such (instead of complaining as customers about inadequate service). At the same time, however, they also become working customers (cf. Voß and Rieder 2005), when they fix defects in relation to the service coworking themselves. In the context of curating, the image of the self-organized community is also fueled24 and authentic communal atmospheres are staged. Here, the CWS operators act as atmosphere managers. In the logic of the service, the users can thus consume not only work atmospheres but also communal atmospheres. The coexistence of communitization and societization is thus also a prerequisite for the functioning of the CWS as a space of possibilities according to the principle ”Just take your pick“. The coworkers can thus constitute suitable work and communal atmospheres for themselves. This means: Although the social formations of CWSs cannot be characterized as self-organized communitizations with regard to the practices in everyday CWS life, they are certainly experienced as such by users. Instead of self-organized traditional communitizations, the social formations in CWSs can be more aptly

24 That

the self-organized communitization is invoked as a desirable form of social relations is related to the prevailing image of coworking that is conveyed in the discourses: The emphasis on community as the core element of CWSs, which distinguishes them from other office concepts (cf. Sect. 2.2.2).

Fig. 13.4   Tensions in everyday CWS life and how to deal with them. (Own illustration)

426 13  Tensions in Everyday Coworking Space Life

13.4 Interim Conclusion: Tensions in the Coworking Space Everyday Life

427

characterized as curated post-traditional work communities. This will be revisited in the concluding Chap. 14.2. Before that, however, a synthesis of the results with regard to the significance of atmospheres in everyday CWS life will take place.

Final Consideration

14

From the perspective of the users, CWSs represent spaces of possibilities that, in addition to spatial-temporal structures and appealing, stimulating as well as focused atmospheres of work, also create authentic communal atmospheres that convey belonging and at the same time also non-commitment. The spaces of CWSs support the coworkers in constituting their own spaces and atmospheres that feel right. In particular, the authentic communal atmospheres make the allure of CWSs, as they are characteristic for post-traditional communitizations. This chapter serves to summarize the present work and draw corresponding conclusions. For this purpose, the conceptual framework is taken up again in Sect. 14.1 and asked what significance atmospheres play ineveryday CWS life, first with regard to the external impact of the spatial arrangements, second from the perspective of the coworkers and third with a focus on the interplay of perceiving subjects and perceived spatial arrangements. Subsequently, the mediating character of atmospheres, which goes beyond the connection between perception subject and object, is highlighted. Sect. 14.2 characterizes the social formations of CWSs as communitizations, more precisely as curated post-traditional work communities. A further conclusion ties in with Böhme’s and Illouz’s criticism of capitalism and considers CWSs as societizations, in which atmospheres represent emotional goods with a high staging value (Sect. 14.3). Sect. 14.4 takes a closer look at the users as working customers in relation to the spatial atmospheres. In Sect. 14.5, conclusions are drawn for CWS operators, which can be derived from the results of the present study. With Sect. 14.6, this final consideration is rounded off by showing the achievement and limitations of this work and giving an outlook for future research and on the future development of CWSs.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 A. Bernhardt, Coworking Atmospheres, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41193-0_14

429

430

14  Final Consideration

14.1 The Role of Atmospheres in Everyday Coworking Space Life This work aimed to investigate the role of atmospheres in everyday CWS life or in the everyday life of coworkers, with a view to the fact that community in the context of these workspaces gains a new significance. The guiding theses, which were formulated with regard to the current state of research, were that the spatial atmospheres of CWSs have a special relevance and that the new connection of work and community is expressed in the spatial atmospheres of CWSs (cf. Chap. 5). How exactly the spatial atmospheres of CWSs can be characterized, what significance especially communal atmospheres have in everyday CWS life and how the coworkers develop the CWS spaces and the associated atmospheres in everyday life are questions that have been little illuminated in previous research on CWSs and that were investigated in the framework of this work. With reference to the conceptual framing, atmospheres—as mediating entities between perception objects and subjects—were analyzed from the side of the perception objects, and thus the spatial arrangements and their production, as well as from the perspective of the users, who develop the spatial arrangements in the spatial experience or appropriation. Taking a subject-oriented perspective, the focus was especially on the latter. With the help of this conceptualization and the associated systematic examination of the spaces and atmospheres of CWSs, the central importance of atmospheres in the context of this investigation could be confirmed and concretized. Figure 14.1 illustrates, using the conceptual framework of this work, how multifaceted the role of atmospheres is in everyday CWS life. The individual points will be discussed in more detail below. Objects of perception—CWS spaces in their construction: The design of the non-human space of CWSs (decisive in the case of Tabit) or the establishment of rules regarding noise level and interaction level (decisive in the case of Sargas) are aimed at creating different work settings with different atmospheres. As external effects of the spatial arrangements, the coworking atmospheres are of importance in various respects, as they influence perception and behavior. (1) When it comes to the core function of providing and curating workspace, three aspects can be highlighted: First, by providing different work settings and atmospheres, a range of users with different work activities and work (space) preferences are addressed. The work settings interaction and concentrated mental work support different activities and trigger—individu-

Fig. 14.1   The role of atmospheres in everyday CWS life. (Own illustration)

14.1  The Role of Atmospheres in Everyday Coworking … 431

432

14  Final Consideration

ally varying—positive affects of well-being or the desire to work. The work atmospheres secondly influence the spatial behavior significantly (with otherwise few rules): For example, it was shown how different spatial arrangements with different atmospheres and associated soundscapes (cf. Orel and Alonso Almeida 2019) support different activities. Through the spatial arrangements, which are accompanied by different atmospheres, the movements of the users are thirdly directed (cf. Jakonen et al. 2017). The different atmospheres and the behavioral patterns linked to the work settings encourage the coworkers to perform different activities in different places.1 (2) With regard to the second core function of CWSs as spaces of communitization, communal atmospheres and their creation play an important role in two respects. Firstly, communal atmospheres foster encounters and social interactions (cf. among others Jakonen et al. 2017; Merkel 2015; Orel and Alonso Almeida 2019) and are decisive for the spaces for interaction. But they also characterize, as the present work has clearly shown, the spaces for concentrated mental work, in which the sense of belonging (together) is not created through doing being open and social interactions, but through the common practice of doing being busy and the shared understanding that being active alongside each other without interaction with the co-present others is legitimate here and that other places are provided for social interactions. In other words: Communitizing atmospheres in CWSs are not only created, as the previous research (cf. ibid.) implies, through encounters and social interactions, but also when working for oneself alongside each other. Secondly, a characteristic feature of communal atmospheres of CWSs is that they convey a sense of belonging (together) with simultaneous non-commitment. This way, even work-focused users experience belonging (cf. Garrett et al. 2017). Thus, the communal atmosphere takes into account the primary core function of CWSs to be workspaces: Although the sociomaterial space of CWSs is designed in such a way that encounters and interactions are enabled or facilitated, it also allows individual work for oneself and withdrawal, which is at least temporarily important for many users for a successful work(space) constitution.2 For coworking atmospheres, the principle of “Just take your pick” 1 Although

it was shown from the perspective of the subject that not all users can equally be moved and that the situationally changing office nomads are the smallest user group. 2 In this respect, the spaces for concentrated mental work (as backstage areas) are equally important (in that they support working for oneself alongside each other, although communitization through social interactions is not the focus here), unlike the spaces for interaction (as frontstage areas of the production of communal atmospheres).

14.1  The Role of Atmospheres in the Coworking …

433

is characteristic in this regard. For the communal atmospheres to become effective, it is important that they are experienced as authentic and not artificial. Authenticity, in turn, is ensured within the framework of curating. (3) Within the framework of social and material curating, the atmospheres of work and community are shaped. In particular, the creation of communal atmospheres is important: Curating them means not only, as it was in the focus of the previous coworking research, promoting encounters and social interactions through the design of the non-human space, events or networking of people, but also staging the personal, unfinished, random or imperfect, creating binding non-commitment, the curated conveying of a community image and the performance of invisible services. Within the framework of curating as aesthetic work, this knowledge of the design of authentic communal atmospheres is anchored in the practical consciousness of the operators (cf. Bender 2013). The management of the coworking atmospheres is done through the staging of the non-human space and the self-presentation of the CWS operators as coworking hosts. The staging of authentic communal atmospheres is an effective means of dealing with tensions in the CWS. Subjects of perception—Coworkers as constructors of spaces: The focus of the work was on the coworkers as space-acting subjects. For the coworkers, the coworking atmospheres play a significant role in exploring the spaces—already at the time of the decision for a specific CWS as well as then in everyday work and in relation to the experience of belonging to the CWS community. In doing so, they themselves constitute atmospheres that feel “right” to them: (1) The experienced coworking atmospheres, and thus the work atmospheres as well as the communal atmospheres, are of particular relevance already in the choice of the specific CWS as a workplace (especially when there are alternatives). In search of suitable spaces and places where they can work well, feel comfortable and experience belonging, coworkers make their decision based on affective attraction to certain places (cf. Bender 2013). The decision for a specific CWS (and against others), as this study showed, is made intuitively and emotionally and less rationally and based on arguments. (2) As an expression of the subjectification of work, the everyday work of coworkers is characterized by self-organization, also with regard to the spatial organization of their work (cf. for the flexible office Petendra 2015). In relation to the work, the users create their own spaces and atmospheres of work in everyday life, which are associated with corresponding emotional states (cf. Bender

434

14  Final Consideration

2013). In doing so, they seek out places that bring them positive feelings in relation to their own work, so that they can work optimally. While there are users who situationally change their own positioning in this regard, a majority of users have preferences in relation to certain work settings and atmospheres. In this regard, this study made clear that the coworking atmospheres—contrary to the quasi-objectivity of atmospheres formulated by Böhme—do not have the same effect on the users, but that the spatial experience of the users is different. And not all coworkers seek aesthetized, creativity-enhancing spaces for everyday work, as Bender (2013) suggests, but there are also users who value distraction-free designed office work spaces with a rather conventional office aesthetics in relation to a successful work space constitution. For this group of users, a separation of the spaces of work and non-work is essential. However, almost every user appreciates in particular the aesthetized spaces for interaction and their inviting, cozy and lively atmospheres, although they are not suitable for work for some coworkers. For those users they rather represent break and relaxation places. Important in relation to the successful constitution of one’s own work spaces and atmospheres, as well as for the positive experience and identification with the CWS as a whole, is the voluntariness of visiting the CWS and thus the fit between user and place, as the case of Tabit user Tristan has illustrated, who works involuntarily in the CWS. (3) The CWS as a place of communitization has, as shown in this study, a different meaning (cf. Garrett et al. 2017) for the users. While community-oriented users seek both professional and private social relationships and interactions in the CWS and experience a strong sense of belonging to the CWS community, for work-focused users the CWS is primarily a workplace, and the sense of belonging is weaker. With regard to the different social structures, however, it becomes apparent that communitization, and not societization, guides the thinking of the users. Thus, work-focused users often see themselves as passive members of the CWS community and consume the communal atmospheres and the associated sense of belonging (together). In this context, the experience of authenticity in CWSs is important, so that CWSs become “spaces of identification” (Reckwitz 2017, p. 61). The experience of belonging within the framework of communitization and the associated selfunderstanding as a community member are also essential in relation to dealing with tensions in the CWS. The interplay of production and reception of atmospheres: As shown in this work, the interaction of the staging of atmospheres and their reception is particularly interesting when it comes to the fit, but also to the cushioning of tensions.

14.1  The Role of Atmospheres in Everyday Coworking …

435

(1) It can be stated that there is usually a fit between spatial arrangements and their external effects as well as demands and spatial constitutions of the subjects, provided that the choice of the CWS is voluntary. Thus, the (work)activities usually fit into the work settings. And also the workplaces of the flex-desk users are an example of such a fit:3 The often impersonal, minimally furnished and mobile-looking workplaces take into account the desk sharing and the associated clean-desk policy. In return, the flex desks are positioned in aesthetized settings with appealing atmospheres, which seem to serve as a compensation for the lack of possibility to personalize the flexible workplaces. The different work settings and associated atmospheres elicit usually positive feelings of desire to work or well-being in the coworkers and support activities that in turn fit the respective work setting. From the perspective of the duality of space from the subject’s point of view, the CWS spaces and associated atmospheres in turn meet the demands of the coworkers who are looking for suitable work spaces where they feel comfortable and can work well. Accordingly, the coworkers do not rate themselves as less productive in relation to their work in the CWS than in previous conventional work settings or when working from home, but rather the opposite as more productive. (2) Although the fit between CWS workspaces and atmospheres on the one hand and the spatial requirements of the coworkers on the other hand is high when there is free choice of space and adequate space supply, there may be tensions in everyday CWS life that result from the coexistence of communitization and societization To cope with these, both within the framework of the management of atmospheres and from the perspective of the CWS users, images of (self-organized) communitization are activated. Thus, the experienced belonging of the subjects and the curated communal atmospheres and the conveyed sense of belonging also interlock here. (3) The interplay of space and subject is also reflected in a future-oriented work attitude mediated by the aesthetics, which is similarly pursued or at least positively acknowledged by the users, even if the users have a rather conventional work (space) understanding in their daily work. Thus, CWSs position themselves not only communicatively, but also through the spaces as “new workspaces” (cf. Pohler 2012) by means of an unconventional office aesthetics4, which is characterized by personality, randomness and unfinished3 That

there are exceptions here was shown in Sect. 10.3.2. the case of the Tabit Classic Office, however, a conventional (albeit relaxed) office aesthetics is also deliberately used to create corresponding atmospheres that contrast with those of the Creative Space. For conventional office workers, it is the preferred work setting.

4 In

436

14  Final Consideration

ness and which typically incorporates elements from non-office areas. And likewise, the difference between working in the CWS and the old world of work is repeatedly emphasized in the user interviews. Through the aesthetics and the associated atmospheres, the blurring of work boundaries is specifically addressed to elicit certain positive affects (of well-being, coziness, fun) that are in turn sought by the work subjects. This expresses the normative subjectification of work, which goes along with claims of meaning and self-realization in work (cf. Sect. 2.1.4). In this respect, the CWS can support the integration of work and non-work by also offering opportunities to pursue voluntary, sports or leisure activities. At the same time, however, there is also the risk of self-exploitation of the subjectified labor power (cf. the following Sect. 14.3). (4) That aesthetics alone does not lead to authentically experienced communal atmospheres, is shown by artificial, top-down-organized office workspaces, such as those of large “CWS” chains, business centers or companies. In such office workspace concepts, the commodity workspace is in focus and the communitization represents less a core goal than a marketing term (cf. RGCS 2016). Thus, typical elements of spatial organization (desk sharing and cleandesk policy) and aesthetics (mixing of work and play) are adopted for CWSs, without the communitization and associated atmospheres being curated to the extent described for the case studies, and without promoting corresponding coworking values, such as openness or collaboration (cf. Sect. 2.2.2). Such office workspaces and their atmospheres are experienced by the interviewed users as less authentic and thus do not unfold the impact of CWSs, thereby attracting other user groups (work-focused with a search for a professional work environment, rather larger companies than solo self-employed). In the CWS context, aesthetics, on the other hand, represents a means of creating appealing (work and communal) atmospheres and thus of seducing oneself to feel belonging to the post-traditional communitization (cf. following chapter). The present study has clearly shown that the spaces of work and the associated atmospheres, their production within the framework of aesthetic work as well as their reception and (re-)production by workers represent important research topics for sociology of work and organization, which have gained in importance against the background of the change of the working world and which should be moved more into the focus of research. For postmodern, aestheticized office workspaces in general, it was already pointed out that also in conventional organizational contexts, the spatial atmospheres are designed within the framework of aesthetic work with respect to certain emotional qualities and associated effects, and this with regard

14.1  The Role of Atmospheres in Everyday Coworking …

437

to certain organizational interests. In this respect, one can ask more precisely what significance work or communal atmospheres have in relation to the production aesthetics and the reception aesthetics and how especially the space-acting workers appropriate the designed spaces and atmospheres for themselves. In addition, one can ask what role atmospheres play in relation to tensions and to what extent they have a mediating effect, or not. The peculiarity of the atmospheres of CWSs is precisely that they not only connect coworkers as perception subjects and spatial arrangements as perception objects, as it was with reference to Löw and Böhme the starting point of this work. Atmospheres in the context of CWSs as multiple mediating entities are of importance beyond that. Thus, a guiding initial thesis was that the core functions of CWSs, work and community, are inherent in the spatial atmospheres. The results of this work confirm that atmospheres mediate in relation to both core functions and between them. In addition, this work has shown that communal atmospheres also have a mediating effect with regard to tensions in everyday CWS life (see Fig. 14.2). Atmospheres therefore not only relate environmental qualities and human well-being to each other, but they also mediate with regard to: • The core functions of CWSs: Thus, this work showed that certain functions of institutionalized spaces are expressed in the atmospheres. Specifically, the atmospheres of CWSs are designed to enable work and to have a communal character and thus convey belonging. This applies to the spaces for interaction as well as to those for concentrated mental work. Even if the insufficient fulfillment of a core function as well as the fulfillment of both core functions can lead to tensions, it is again the atmospheres that mediate in relation to the tensions. • Tensions in everyday CWS life: More precisely, it is the communal atmospheres that absorb tensions in everyday CWS life and are shaped as aesthetic work in this regard as part of the curating. For example, it was shown that the lack of participation of coworkers in communal rituals, which results from the fact that communal activities fall into the core working time (as a conflict between the two core functions work and community), is compensated by the staging of communal atmospheres as part of the curating. At the same time, communal atmospheres address the coworkers as community members who feel belonging and responsible for the work and community space, and thus compensate or tolerate defects, especially in relation to the service of work space. Through their communal behavior, they in turn strengthen the communal atmospheres.

Fig. 14.2   Coworking atmospheres as multiply mediating entities. (Own illustration)

438 14  Final Consideration

14.2  Coworking Spaces as Curated Post-Traditional …

439

Due to this basic mediating character of coworking atmospheres, as it is characteristic for the case studies, hardly any major, obvious conflicts arise. This enables different groups of coworkers to successfully create their own workspaces and atmospheres and to experience individual belonging as a member of a community. While the creation of different work atmospheres is a basic prerequisite for CWSs to appeal to coworkers with different needs and preferences for their work space (and thus to account for the primary core function of CWSs), authentic communal atmospheres are important to convey belonging while maintaining non-commitment and thus to strengthen the voluntary and temporary decision of the users to be a member of the CWS and to absorb tensions. The communal atmospheres are an expression of the curated post-traditional work communities.

14.2 Coworking Spaces as Curated Post-Traditional Work Communities In addition to highlighting the importance of atmospheres in the context of CWSs, another aim of this work was to shed more light on the special significance of community in the context of workspaces. In CWSs, the change in the world of work is expressed insofar as here a new conception of communal work comes to expression: Their popularity is an expression of a new need for workspaces (as spaces of societization) that not only support the temporal-spatial structuring of one’s own work, but also represent spaces of communitization. Communitization thus gains in importance in everyday work. However, this is not about communality in the traditional sense, as this work has made clear, following Butcher (2013), Rus and Orel (2015) or Spinuzzi et al. (2019): The need for community goes hand in hand with the preservation of one’s own autonomy and thus the voluntariness to participate in communal activities, or not. For this link between communitization and societization to work in the context of CWSs, this work has made clear, the curating of community, the creation of authentic communal atmospheres and the associated binding non-commitment in the context of CWSs are of particular importance. Through this, it is possible that communal atmospheres are also experienced as authentic when the community members do not actively participate in their production. The social formations of CWSs can be understood in this respect as curated post-traditional work communities (cf. Sect. 3.5.2). Shared values (as a characteristic of traditional communitizations) are also characteristic for CWS communities (cf. Blagoev et al. 2019), as the values underlying the coworking movement

440

14  Final Consideration

show (cf. Sect. 2.2.2). Rather than orienting themselves to the CWS values, however, this study allows to conclude that the experience of authentic communal atmospheres is important, which can be consumed or more strongly co-constituted by active participation. The binding non-commitment allows for a “passive consumption” of the communal atmospheres, without having to actively participate in communal atmospheres. In this way, the CWSs meet the need of workfocused people to experience communality as well as work and to feel a sense of belonging to a communitization. The communal atmospheres, as this study showed, are reinforced by the spatial arrangements, by common rituals such as curated events or self-organized coffee breaks, as well as by other trust-building and -strengthening practices and rituals. For the communal atmospheres, the interplay of practices for creating closeness or maintaining distance, which is characteristic for CWSs, is also important. In the case of the spaces for concentrated mental work, the common practice of uniform doing being busy practices not only contributes to the work mood, but also creates a communal atmosphere and, associated with it, a feeling of belonging (together). To initiate communal atmospheres through encounters and social interactions, as intended for the spaces for interaction, doing being open practices are of particular importance: As an expression of the binding noncommitment, doing being open also creates closeness among strangers or superficially acquainted people and activates communal atmospheres. Relationships can be easily established and reactivated through doing being open, whereby they often have an instrumental character with regard to the primary core function of CWSs as workspaces. In the field of tension between individuality and autonomy on the one hand and belonging and collectivity on the other hand, CWSs as curated post-traditional work communities offer an answer. As characteristic for post-traditional communities, the membership for the majority of the interviewed users is not characterized by coercion, but rather by seduction and affectual belonging and is based on free choice (cf. Sect. 9.2). Central for the post-traditional CWS communities is the individual experience of community and belonging to it. The study showed that the experience of belonging varies in intensity. However, it turned out that all coworkers experience belonging. Even people who visit the CWS primarily as a workplace typically see themselves as “passive members” of a communitization and less as customers in the context of societization. CWS memberships, as characteristic for post-traditional communitizations, often occur voluntarily and are temporary in terms of duration. The resulting, constantly moving composition of the CWS members fuels the curated accidental encounters among each other. The voluntary decision for the membership leads

14.3  Atmospheres as Emotional Commodities With High Staging Value

441

to a self-selection determined by the habitus. As also characteristic for post-traditional communitizations (as well as communities in general), the “construction of a common ‘outside’” (Hitzler et al. 2008, p. 16) is essential. Thus, the members of the CWS communitization clearly distinguish themselves from other CWSs or the old world of work, as it becomes evident in the field. The access to the CWS community is essentially tied to the formal CWS membership in the context of societization. But even without buying a membership or after ending the CWS membership, individuals can be or remain part of the communitization by having contact with active members and participating in common rituals, such as community or other events. This again shows the open character of CWSs: The demarcation to the outside does not take place rigidly. For the functioning of such a post-traditional work community, which is characterized by the focus on work and individual experience of belonging, the curating of such and a corresponding atmosphere management is of high importance, as this work made clear. The curating and, associated with it, the composing of appealing coworking atmospheres represents a strategy of “seduction” of the users.

14.3 Atmospheres as Emotional Commodities With High Staging Value The post-traditional communitization, as already highlighted, is embedded in a (purpose-rational and at the same time also value-rational) societization. The coworkers choose a CWS membership model and receive a corresponding service, which is (more or less strongly) contractually regulated, in exchange for payment: Here coworking is a commodity. What is mainly regulated is the use of the CWS as a workspace, the associated offer and rules of use (such as access to the CWS or desk sharing). The utilization of atmospheres and feelings seems to be an invisible contractual component. In the context of this work, it became clear that curating the CWS and an associated atmosphere management, i.e. the targeted composition of atmospheres to control feelings and activities, are essential for coworking. Accordingly, the importance of atmospheres for the development of the spaces by the coworkers with regard to the everyday work and the subjective belonging to the CWS community is also high. In the logic of societization, the spaces and atmospheres of CWSs represent commodities with a high scenic or staging value (cf. Böhme 2013b), with the help of which positive emotional states (such as work mood, well-being, belonging, etc.) are evoked (cf. Sect. 3.2.2). The service coworking thus also includes the staging of (certain work activities promoting, stimulating or focused, authentic communal, etc.) atmospheres by means

442

14  Final Consideration

of practices of curating, in order to influence the feelings of the users (cf. Illouz 2018). In other words, coworking atmospheres and the associated emotional states are instrumentalized and made usable within the framework of the service. They become emotional commodities or emodities (cf. ibid.), which are purchasable and consumable, as became particularly clear in the case of the authentic communal atmospheres. This also makes belonging to the community purchasable. Nevertheless, this staging of atmospheres is often not consciously perceived by the coworkers. In this regard, Jakonen et al. (2017, p. 241) note critically in their study that there is a commodification of the idea of community and the encounters within the framework of curating (see Sect. 4.2). Thus, the instrumental spatial design of CWSs steers encounters, although this power remains invisible for the users (Jakonen et al. 2017, p. 241). With this, they tie in with Böhme’s critique of the aesthetic economy (see Sect. 3.2.2). The coworking hosts have a large practical knowledge of objects, spaces and their ecstasies, which is associated with power, insofar as the design of atmospheres unconsciously manipulates moods and arouses emotions (see Böhme 2013c, pp. 35 ff.). In a similar direction goes the critique of Julian Waters-Lynch and Cameron Duff (2019). In their theoretical contribution to the “Affective Commons” of coworking, they highlight the importance of appealing communal atmospheres in the context of CWSs as well as their commercial exploitation (see Waters-Lynch and Duff 2019 for this and the following explanations of the section): Under Affective Commons the authors understand affective communal resources, which are the atmospheric product of the immaterial, affective work of the coworkers. With this, they emphasize the co-production of communal atmospheres by the coworkers (see also the following chapter). According to Waters-Lynch and Duff, however, those atmospheres produced by the users on the one hand (as value generation) and their commodification and private use by the operators on the other hand (as commercial valorization) lead to tensions. The authors advocate a critical examination of the commodification of communal atmospheres of CWSs in this regard: “Coworking is characterised by the enclosure and commodification of an atmosphere by way of a distinctive business model. In other words, the business of Coworking highlights a gap between value and valorisation. This is why we argue that the recognition of Coworking atmospheres as an affective commons not only offers a more nuanced descriptive analysis, but also opens up a set of ethico-political considerations regarding the governance arrangements and dominant business models of Coworking.” (Waters-Lynch and Duff 2019, p. 14)

However, Waters-Lynch and Duff do not see the possibilities that arise from the coexistence of communitization and societization, to absorb tensions and the

14.3  Atmospheres as Emotional Commodities With High Staging Value

443

importance that curating community has in terms of atmosphere management, which makes it easier for the users to create desired positive atmospheres and associated emotional states. For although the communal atmospheres are co-produced by the coworkers, the atmosphere management within the framework of curating is of particular importance for CWSs, as the present work has shown. The high importance of atmospheres and positive emotional states in the work of the coworkers indicates that not only the activity of the operators, but also the activity of the coworkers is characterized by an aesthetic work practice (cf. Krämer 2017, p. 285 f.): This refers to the affective experience at work as an aesthetic work experience, which on the one hand is determined by a positive experiential dimension that enables a fulfilling activity and on the other hand guarantees economic success as aesthetic integration (ibid.). The curated coworking atmospheres support such an aesthetic work practice. Because they open up the possibility for the users to consume (communal as well as work-) atmospheres that are associated with positive emotional states, and thus to constitute them with little effort. The atmosphere management and the associated influence on the feelings of the coworkers thus directly benefits the subjectified workers and their challenges in terms of self-organization (cf. Sect. 2.2.5) and supports them in self-optimization within the framework of their own work. With regard to the subject perspective, the present work has repeatedly shown how significant the seeking and creating of positively experienced atmospheres are for coping with the workday. That the curated coworking atmospheres do not only serve self-optimization, but also promote the blurring of the worker’s boundaries and self-exploitation of the subjectified worker, represents the other side of the coin and thus another point to be critically examined. A work attitude characteristic of the field, associated with the aesthetic work practice, is the “absorption in work” characterized by Hannes Krämer (2017), which unlike Karl Marx “does not lie in the alienation from one’s own person, but is located in an excess of proximity between self and work object” (ibid., p. 286). This can lead to the prevention of self-reflection on one’s own work (ibid.)5. Aestheticized work settings and attractive atmos-

5 Thus,

negative aspects of spatial blurring in the context of CWSs are less addressed in the user interviews. However, there are also interview partners who deal with the problem of blurring in relation to their own work in a reflective way, such as Tabit user Till, who states that working in the CWS requires self-organization: “the whole day, […] you organize it a bit yourself and MIX the things a bit underneath/ and juggle with the things more. (I: Mhm.) That is something that is certainly more in Tabit. And there you need also DISCIPLINE, so that you don’t lose yourself in the things.” (interview Till, para. 108).

444

14  Final Consideration

pheres, which seem to optimally combine work and non-work and thus promote positive emotional states, can also contribute to the interpretation of joy in work as self-realization and thus conceal, for example, the precariousness of the work situation (cf. ibid.). Thus, one could provocatively ask to what extent appealing coworking atmospheres obscure the neoliberal logic and promote blurring of one’s own boundaries and ‍self-‍exploitation, while the fundamental problems of the work subjects remain. This would reinforce the criticism of CWSs as places of precarious work(ers) (cf. de Peuter et al. 2017; Gandini 2015; Jakonen et al. 2017; Merkel 2018a). In this regard, this work showed, among other things, that communal atmospheres promote the de-limitation of social connections and can lead to work being performed as (unpaid) friendship service instead of paid employment (cf. Chap. 11). This is an example of how CWSs—despite the fact that they counteract the de-limitation and subjectification of work with spatialtemporal structures—at the same time also challenge coworkers in their subjectivity (cf. also the following chapter). These dark sides are hardly addressed in the public coworking discourse as well as in the field. In this regard, de Peuter et al. (2017, p. 694) state: “Precarity is coworking’s constitutive outside, keeping a low profile in representations of the practice—highlighting hardship would jeopardize coworking’s trademark upbeat affect.” And although there are professional associations in the coworking field that sometimes also advocate for the interests of the coworkers, there are hardly any interest groups of coworkers per se. In order to better understand the opportunities and dangers of subjectified work in the context of CWSs, future research should be interested in the in-depth analysis of different forms of aesthetic, subjectified work in CWSs at the level of practices as well as subjective work attitudes of coworkers. In addition, there is a need for research on possible negative consequences of subjectified work in the CWS for the users (cf. Sect. 2.1.4). Thus, one could ask how coworkers organize their (work-)day spatially, but also temporally, meaningfully, emotionally, etc., how they deal with the challenges in relation to blurring of their own boundaries and self-exploitation and to what extent there are also signs of overstress up to illnesses. Here, the consideration of the everyday life conduct in the course of the CWS membership from entry to exit would be of interest for possible future research. Moreover, former users of CWSs would be a particularly interesting group of study to learn more about the reasons for leaving and possible negative effects of working in CWSs. However, not only the coworkers, but also the coworking hosts as curators do special aesthetic work with regard to the production aesthetics at CWSs, whose core is the atmosphere management and thus the staging of spaces and their own self. To ensure not only the staging of atmospheres, but also that of the self to be

14.4  Coworkers as Working Customers

445

experienced as authentic, it requires from the coworking hosts in turn emotional work and thus a corresponding management of their own feelings (cf. Hochschild 2006). Curating as interaction work is thus emotional work, which means dealing with one’s own emotions and affective work as well as influencing the feelings of the users (cf. Böhle and Weihrich 2020). The subjectified work of the coworking hosts also entails risks in terms of blurring and overstress, whose more precise research would be of interest. In addition, training of the coworking hosts would be helpful to prevent such risks, as recommended in Sect. 14.5 among others with regard to the practice.

14.4 Coworkers as Working Customers The focus of analysis in this work was placed on the coworkers as spatially acting subjects. It was shown how they develop CWSs for themselves as workspaces as well as community spaces and in this respect do not only passively receive spaces and atmospheres, but also actively create and (re-)produce them. Although it was explained that a lack of participation in communal activities within the framework of curating community is compensated for and (work-focused) coworkers can also passively consume the curated communal atmospheres without actively participating in communal activities. At the same time, however, it was also shown that the coworkers also actively shape the spaces and the associated atmospheres in their spatial action: By showing themselves as working through practices of doing being busy, they contribute to the concentrated working atmosphere of the spaces for concentrated mental work. By engaging in small talk with other users at the coffee machine, they contribute to the open and relaxed café atmosphere of the spaces for interaction. In this context, the communal atmospheres are particularly significant when it comes to the magic of coworking. If a CWS has few coworkers, it is hardly possible to stage authentic communal atmospheres permanently within the framework of curating. I have not only once experienced the experience of human-empty spaces during my CWS stays and asked myself the question: “Is this coworking?” (field notes L-Space). With regard to this and the associated importance of the coworking community, a restaurant metaphor is common in the coworking discourse, according to which a full CWS, like a wellvisited restaurant, automatically attracts new guests and an empty CWS—like an empty restaurant—does not look inviting and thus new guests stay away. In this respect, community building is understood as an important task of the coworking hosts. If coworkers do not co-create the atmospheres and thus do not informally cowork on the commodity coworking, the seductive power that coworking exerts

446

14  Final Consideration

does not arise. Thus, as Waters-Lynch and Duff (2019) also emphasize, the immaterial work of the coworkers as co-producers of the coworking atmospheres plays an important role. Thus, the coworkers are (unconsciously) involved in the collective production of the spatial atmospheres of work resp. communitization within the framework of the service or commodity coworking, and thus in the value creation of the CWS (cf. ibid.). The coworkers are thus also always “active” consumers resp. working customers (cf. Voß and Rieder 2005). In the view of coworking as societization, the coworkers are thus part of the curating and co-create the atmospheres in their spatial action (cf. Fig. 14.3). Coworkers can become working customers and thus economic sources of value and create use value (Voß and Rieder 2005, p. 133 ff.). For CWSs this was already shown by the unpaid friendship services and the handling of the tensions by the coworkers: By feeling affiliated as members of a communitization, they provide unpaid work and step in to remedy defects in the service of coworking. Here, especially communal atmospheres and associated feelings seem to be means to conceal work as such. At this point, the argument goes one step further.

Fig. 14.3   Co-curating of atmospheres by the coworkers. (Own illustration)

14.5  Practical Implications

447

Not only with regard to the unpaid friendship services or to remedy defects, but also in relation to the core service of CWSs, namely the curating of atmospheres of work and communitization, the coworkers cooperate and actively co-create them—and again, without understanding their work as such. Because when coproducing the work atmospheres, it is first of all for the users about creating their own work atmospheres. And also when co-producing communal atmospheres, the coworkers are primarily concerned with their own role as community members and the belonging to the CWS communitization. In the context of the commodity coworking, the communal production of the coworking atmospheres is now part of the business model (Waters-Lynch and Duff 2019, p. 14). Thus, the coworkers create as working customers not only use values by working unpaid for the CWS or by eliminating defects of the service work space themselves, but they also increase in particular the staging value of the commodity coworking by coproducing the spatial atmospheres of CWSs. In the logic of societization, coworking and the associated atmospheres are thus a product that is produced by both operators and coworkers. This means that coworkers are affected by subjectification from two sides: by the subjectification of work and by the subjectification of consumption (cf. Voß and Rieder 2005, p. 165 ff.). From the users of CWSs, not only an extended subjectivity is demanded in relation to their work, but also in relation to the use of the CWS as working customers. In addition, a third role is important, which was repeatedly emphasized in the context of this work and which is of particular relevance in the context of CWSs as new communal work spaces: that of community members. By understanding themselves as community members and being addressed by the CWSs as such, their role as voluntarily working customers is underpinned, which shows a highly ambiguous relationship in relation to a new organizational use of labor. It seems paradoxical at first glance, that in the image of the self-organized communitization, in which the users are equal active members, the users appear most strongly as working customers, who cooperate in the functioning of the CWS and the atmosphere management. To what extent the social principle of communitization also comes into play and is used operationally in the context of working customers as an expression of societization in other forms, e.g. in online communities, is to be explored in the context of future research. It is also interesting to examine more closely the role of working customers in the co-production of spatial atmospheres for other areas. Figure 14.4 summarizes again the different roles of the coworkers (see also Sect. 12.4 with regard to the self-presentations of the coworkers).

448

14  Final Consideration

Fig. 14.4   The roles of coworkers. (Own illustration)

This also makes clear that the social formations of communitization and societization also come into effect at the level of the subject with regard to the roles of the coworkers. The users of CWSs are thus at the same time entrepreneurs of their own subjectified work, passive consumers (with regard to curated communal atmospheres, in which they are not directly involved), active working customers (with regard to the co-production of the spatial atmospheres of coworking, i.e. more precisely of work and communal atmospheres) and active as well as passive members of a communitization (experienced as guided or self-organized).

14.5  Practical Implications

449

14.5 Practical Implications What can CWS operators learn from the present study? The answers can again be grouped around the two perspectives on space and atmospheres: the production and reception aesthetics. Thus, the practical knowledge of coworking hosts on atmosphere management is valuable. And also the users with their aesthetic experiences and spatial needs should be involved in the curating. The seduction of CWSs, so the results of the present study could be sharpened, lies in creating work settings and atmospheres that appeal to different users and their needs, and creating authentic communal atmospheres that convey noncommitment at the same time. The work of coworking hosts as part of curating thus not only involves the control of the movements and activities in the CWS, but also the atmosphere management. They design the spatial arrangements with a view to preparing certain atmospheres (of work or communality). In doing so, they not only stage the spaces, but also themselves in such a way that the desired atmospheres are reinforced. The self-staging involves appearance, clothing, nonverbal gestures of signaling openness, small talk and other practices of doing being open. The work of coworking hosts is thus aesthetic work and as interaction work emotional as well as emotion work (cf. Böhle and Weihrich 2020). In the context of this study, it became apparent that the atmosphere management is quite conscious to the coworking hosts, although the competencies and the knowledge in the context of their aesthetic work are rather part of the practical and less of the discursive consciousness. This should be built on in the future: If implicit knowledge is at least partly made explicit and thus transparent and formalized, for example in the context of training6, the atmosphere management can be optimized. The design of spaces and their effects as well as various social strategies of curating would thus be partly learnable and a corresponding awareness of the different logics of communitization and societization would be created among future coworking hosts. In this way, they become aware of the influence of curating in everyday CWS life and learn, for example, how their communication conveys different images of social formations (Are the coworkers addressed informally and seen as members (communitization) or are they addressed formally and understood as “customers”?). In addition, tensions can be uncovered and reflected in this way. Cowork-

6 For

example, courses or further education for coworking hosts or community managers are now offered—by coworking associations as well as by commercial providers.

450

14  Final Consideration

ing hosts can not only acquire relevant competencies in terms of the management of atmospheres, but also in terms of the management of their own feelings. Since the work of coworking hosts is a highly subjectified work, it is important that they also learn to set boundaries—be it spatially-temporally, emotionally or in relation to the social relationships. In this way, dangers of blurring and overstress of coworking hosts can be reduced. At the same time, it should be objected at this point that the knowledge about spaces and atmospheres is hardly accessible to the discursive consciousness, which makes it difficult to make the knowledge explicit. In addition, the magic of coworking only becomes effective when the atmospheres are experienced authentically. The associated processes of creating authenticity and corresponding design of spaces and atmospheres remain to some extent implicit or are linked to intuition or certain personalities. This should be taken into account when recruiting community managers. Operators should explicate the skill and competence profile of a good coworking host in this regard. For a formalized position, it is also important to make it transparent for the applicants what range the skill and activity profile of a community manager covers, so that expectations are met and the community managers are not disappointed or overwhelmed later. As the present study has repeatedly made clear, atmospheres and feelings play an important role in relation to the subjective development of the CWS spaces by the users. Since not only the spaces shape the action, but also vice versa the action shapes the spaces, it is valuable for operators to take into account the coworkers with their needs and experiences regarding the reception aesthetics. By actively involving coworkers in the process of curating, their work in relation to the co-curating of atmospheres as working customers is appreciated and made more transparent. Already in the planning of a CWS, it can be useful to include the perspective of potential users or to develop spatial arrangements and atmospheres in a joint co-creation process (cf. Rus and Orel 2015), as was done in the case of Tabit for the premises of the new CWS. A heterogeneous composition of the participants and the representation of atmosphere designers (such as architects and operators) as well as potential coworkers is fruitful for the joint development of space and atmosphere concepts, in order to integrate different views on atmospheres. In this context, it helps to work with creative techniques and visual data in the framework of such participatory formats, in order to get closer to the development of desired spaces and atmospheres. If the location for a new CWS is already accessible, on-site workshops can also be beneficial, in order to feel the existing spaces bodily and to gain a better imagination of future spaces and atmospheres in this regard. In the context of co-creation workshops, the atmosphere management is also made transparent and can thus be questioned.

14.6  Overall Reflection and Outlook

451

For existing CWSs, regular collection of informal feedback (through small talk) or formal feedback (through surveys, interviews, feedback box, workshops, etc.) on needs, feelings and wishes regarding the spaces is also valuable. In this regard, operators should also be aware that spaces can be used differently than anticipated by them, and not all users use spaces in the same way. In addition, operators can also consciously change perspectives towards the impact of the designed space from the users’ point of view. It can be noted that CWS operators often already have established appropriate channels through which coworkers can give feedback. It would be particularly interesting to also obtain feedback from ex-users or interested parties who decided against working in the CWS after initial contact (tour and/or trial work day). A final point that emerges from the conclusions on atmospheres as emotional commoditiess is that CWSs should not simply act as a collection point for precarious work, but rather support and enable subjectified workers in their daily work to pursue their work professionally, without exploiting themselves or even becoming ill. As shown, the social interactions in the CWS are important for coworkers and should receive appropriate attention when curating (e.g. through networking events, in the form of analog or virtual places for presentation and as contact opportunities for users, or through the CWS-coordinated collaboration on joint projects). With regard to collaboration, CWS operators should set clear framework conditions and rules for how the participation of coworkers is designed and serve as a role model for how “good” (collaborative) work should be designed. This also includes limiting work and fair remuneration. Enabling coworkers also involves more than fulfilling the core functions of providing and curating work and community spaces. For example, some CWSs offer support services, such as childcare, free coworking (i.e. workspaces are not offered for money, but for the provision of immaterial services by the coworkers) or discounted access to sports facilities, to relieve coworkers financially or to achieve a better work-life integration. The cooperation of CWSs or CWS associations with national associations for self-employed and founders or professional associations can also create support services for coworkers, such as discounted health insurance for self-employed or access to experts (cf. de Peuter et al. 2017).7 Further-

7 De

Peuter et al. (2017, p. 703) go one step further and see CWSs as possible platforms for the political organization of coworkers—by supporting unions or as cooperative organizations: “Coworking’s politicization requires intensifying its connections to other currents of mutual aid–oriented labour politics, including unions, but also the co-operative movement, workers’ centres and urban commons initiatives.”

452

14  Final Consideration

more, workshops can not only provide professionalization, but also beyond (for designing one’s own lifestyle, for relaxation, etc.) assistance for the coworkers. For the exchange of best practices and access to certain support services, membership of the CWSs in regional or national coworking associations as well as attendance of coworking conferences and barcamps can also be helpful.

14.6 Overall Reflection and Outlook The present work has systematically and comprehensively, theoretically and empirically dealt with the spaces, places, atmospheres, practices, social goods and subjects in the context of CWSs, in order to illuminate the role of spatial atmospheres in everyday CWS life or everyday life of coworkers and how a new connection between work and community is expressed in the atmospheres. A holistic analysis of the phenomenon of spatial atmospheres in the context of CWSs was carried out, as it has not yet been done in the framework of previous research on the spaces and atmospheres of coworking (cf. Sect. 4.2). For the detailed investigation, a conceptual framing was used, with the help of which the spatial atmospheres and their significance could be viewed and reconstructed from two sides: from the perspective of the spatial arrangements and their production as well as from the perspective of the coworkers as space-acting subjects. This approach made it possible to make the spatial atmospheres of CWSs accessible and describable, as it has not yet been done in a comparable way. With the approach, this work takes into account the duality of space, by not only examining the spaces and atmospheres in their production and their effect on action, but also the space-acting subjects, who in turn (re-)produce spaces. Moreover, it emphasizes, unlike previous CWS research, the perspective of the coworkers as space-developing (and thus experiencing or appropriating) subjects. Thus, this work highlights that the users do not simply let themselves be influenced and guided by the CWS spaces and atmospheres, but that the coworkers also coproduce atmospheres as elements of the space and create their own spaces and atmospheres as bodily sensing subjects. The theoretical contribution of the present work lies in the establishment of a conceptual framework that allowed a profound and systematic analysis of spaces and atmospheres. The relational understanding of space by Löw and the understanding of atmospheres by Böhme, which Löw also refers to, formed the basis for the conceptualization of spatial atmospheres as connections between perceiving subjects, here especially the coworkers, and objects, here the spatial arrangements of CWSs. In addition, with regard to the core functions of CWSs, a

14.6  Overall Reflection and Outlook

453

refinement of the theoretical framework was made, in order to be able to explicitly take into account the atmospheres of work and communaliization and thus to reflect the special importance of community in the context of CWSs. While communal atmospheres in the context of existing studies on CWSs were mainly considered with regard to the design of encounters and social interactions within the framework of curating (cf. among others Jakonen et al. 2017; Orel and Alonso Almeida 2019), they were broadened in the present study and thus also included those of concentrated working for oneself alongside each other without interaction and the accompanying silence (cf. de Vaujany and Aroles 2019). While other studies on CWS communities focused on communal symbolism, rituals and practices (cf. Sect. 4.4), these were part of a more comprehensive analysis of the communal atmospheres of CWSs in the present work, which also included the subjective experience from the perspective of the users. With regard to the subjective developing of CWSs as work or community spaces, detailed analyses were carried out in the present work and user typologies were developed, as they have not yet been available. New was also the analysis of the subjectively experienced social formations of CWSs and the associated development of a typology. A theoretical reference that became significant in this context is the sociological distinction of the social formations of communitization and societization: These social formations not only characterize the subjectively experienced images of CWSs, but also determine everyday CWS life. Unlike Spinuzzi et al. (2019), this coexistence of communitization and societization in everyday CWS life was not understood in the present work in relation to certain characteristics that can be more community or more society, but in a both-and in the sense of Max Weber’s definition. How these social connections interact in everyday life at one place, how tensions arise and how they are dealt with in the context of curating and by the users, was previously a blind spot that was illuminated by the present study. For although previous research has pointed to the ambivalences of coworking (cf. de Peuter et al. 2017), a detailed elaboration of everyday tensions that determine a CWS, as it was done in this work, has not yet been provided. The significance of the coexistence of communitization and societization and their different weighting for other CWS models and adjacent office space concepts is an interesting topic for future research projects. Particularly the depth of the analysis made tensions visible that would have remained hidden with a superficial view. And only through detailed examination, the curated communal atmospheres, which are characteristic for CWSs and co-determine their attractiveness, could be revealed. Through binding noncommitment, the CWSs become spaces of possibility, within which different subjective spaces and atmospheres can be constituted and at the same time they

454

14  Final Consideration

convey a feeling of belonging (together). In this way, CWSs manage, as Nina Pohler already pointed out in 2012, to “reconcile seemingly contradictory things” (Pohler 2012, p. 75). This magic of CWSs in the sense of seduction unfolds its effectiveness especially when there is a fit between CWSs and the needs of the users, when the way to the CWS was voluntary and when the spaces and their external effects are experienced as authentic. In order to understand the self-sense of CWSs and to trace the role of atmospheres in the context of CWSs, an ethnographic research attitude was adopted, whereby the reconstruction of the subject perspective of the coworkers was given special importance. The empirical approach committed itself to the criteria of quality of qualitative social research, as proposed by Jörg Strübing et al. (2018), to the appropriateness of the subject matter, i.e. “a way of producing the research object that takes the empirical field seriously, but at the same time distances itself from it and puts it under tension through theoretical thinking” (Strübing et al. 2018, p. 85). The appropriateness of the subject matter goes hand in hand with the criteria of empirical saturation and theoretical penetration of the object of investigation (cf. ibid., p. 88 ff.).8 Thus, the research process of the present study was iterative-cyclical and characterized by a change of phases of approximation and field participation as well as of phases of conscious distancing, reflection and connection to the theory. In data collection, a method-plural approach was pursued, within which different participant perspectives and sensory data on spaces were collected: In addition to interview data (with operators and coworkers), also (self-)observation and visual data were included in the analysis, in order to get closer to the material shape of CWSs and the appropriation of the spaces by the coworkers (cf. Löw 2018, p. 75). The triangulation of different methods, data types and sources enabled the reconstruction of the two perspectives on spaces and atmospheres. The different data could be related to each other in the analysis and thus contradictions could also be made visible. And not only the linking of different collection methods, but also the combination of content-analyticalstructuring and hermeneutic-interpretive evaluation was a gain in terms of the in-depth analysis and the uncovering of tensions. 8 On this, Strübing et al. (2018, p. 91): “Only if both are present, appropriateness of the subject matter can be achieved, because only the sensitive handling of theoretical perspectives allows to make selections from the abundance of empirical impressions and to bridge inevitable gaps in observation mentally, and because only the deep entanglement in the empirical material can show the relevance of theoretical perspectives. Between both criteria there is a relation of co-constitution: They mutually condition each other and only function together.” In addition, Strübing et al. (2018) suggest textual performance and originality as further criteria of quality of qualitative social research.

14.6  Overall Reflection and Outlook

455

The empirical approach also brought challenges that were already presented in Sect. 6.4. Moreover, due to the complex procedure, only two urban CWSs and not more operational cases could be included. In order to broaden the perspective for the analysis, insights and experiences from visits and uses of other CWSs and related office work space concepts were also incorporated into this work. Nevertheless, the results of the analysis only fully apply to the presented case studies and are only partially transferable to other CWSs. In view of the dynamic development of the field and the diversity of CWSs with increasing importance in rural areas, with different sizes, thematic orientations, membership models, spatial design and use concepts and associated work settings, further analyses of coworking atmospheres and their generation, reception and (re)production are desirable in the context of future research, and in this respect a verification, modification or extension of the established typologies of work settings, users and experienced social formations. For example, in the case of coliving spaces, the social relationships and interactions are more intense due to shared living at a new location and shared spending of leisure activities, although there is also no compulsion to participate in the curated communal activities. In rural CWSs, on the other hand, the composition of users is comparatively heterogeneous and due to the lack of alternatives, CWSs atmospheres are possibly less suitable for users. At the same time, rural CWSs are rather smaller and the scope for co-design by users is even greater in terms of creating desired atmospheres. Especially for rural CWSs, it is also relevant to reach a critical mass of coworkers, so that the magic of the curated communal atmospheres, which are co-created by the coworkers, begins to take effect. Also, the investigation of the atmospheres of adjacent office work space concepts, such as business centers or CWSs of large top-down organized CWS chains, is still pending and would be of great interest. Such concepts use the typical coworking aesthetics, although they pursue a pronounced service orientation in relation to the core function of work space. Communitization is less a core function here, which is accordingly curated. Nevertheless, there can also be (spontaneous as well as guided) communitization and communal atmospheres here. That the curating of community in the case of the CWS chains does take place, I experienced during my visits on site: Social meeting points and events play a big role here as well. In addition, communitization in the virtual space via internal social networks has a greater importance. Especially for office work space complexes of CWS chains for more than 1,000 users, it would be interesting to ask whether and how communal atmospheres can be characterized here and how they are promoted and experienced by the users. With such a size, techniques of social curating of community, which rely on direct social interactions between coworking hosts and users, reach their limits. Here it would be necessary to ask what the role

456

14  Final Consideration

of the community managers, who are also present here (cf. visit V-Space), is and what curating of community, if it takes place, means here. Further limitations of the study lie in the fact that the field phases took place over longer, but limited periods of time. A longer-term study would be of great interest both in relation to the CWSs as organizations (from planning to opening, as a young CWS as well as with increasing establishment, growth or also setbacks, up to closure9) and in relation to the users and their development in the CWS (from entry into the CWS to exit). Looking at the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the spatial arrangements of CWSs (such as distance-based table arrangements, the use of plexiglass or room dividers to separate workstations, the targeted navigation through the space via markings or person limits at social meeting points, which make accidental encounters and doing being open more difficult) and the associated behavioral rules (such as greeting without physical contact or mask requirement in communal areas), one can ask how these affect the atmospheres of work and communitization, which requires further research. As already made clear in Sect. 6.4, choosing a method means rejecting others. Instead of conducting photo interviews with users, which allow a retrospective view in the form of talking about spaces, an ethnographic accompaniment (possibly with the support of video recordings) would also be of interest, in order to trace the interaction of spaces and subjects with regard to the coworking atmospheres in the process. With regard to the investigated groups of persons, new members proved to be particularly interesting in the present study, as they have built up less routines and rituals in relation to their everyday CWS life and reflect more on decisions and actions in everyday CWS life. Thus, especially persons who choose to work in the CWS, and their accompaniment over a longer period of time, could be interesting to research more closely. And also other groups, such as persons who have decided against a certain CWS, or former users, should be more strongly included in future research, as in these cases the fit between CWS and the expectations of the users is not (any longer) given and thus more attention could be paid to tensions. Also, a study of former users of CWSs, as already noted, could shed more light on possible downsides of CWSs in connection with

9 The

dynamic development of the field was repeatedly emphasized in this work and also showed itself in the operational cases. Thus, both Tabit and the Sargas were successful CWSs at the respective time of investigation, but both have closed in the meantime due to gentrification-related renovation measures or rent increases (although Tabit still exists with the new CWS).

14.6  Overall Reflection and Outlook

457

subjectified work. For a sharpening of the user typologies, finally, a more systematic investigation according to criteria such as gender, age, industry or employment relationship would be of interest. In addition, parents or older users, who are underrepresented in this study, should be more closely examined as user groups. With regard to the employment relationship, it should be noted that in the course of the CWS development, more and more employees of companies work in CWSs, who have not freely chosen the work location CWS. Here it can be assumed that they, as in the case of Tristan, experience more tensions. In addition, more and more people outside the ICT sector or cultural and creative industries work in CWSs. Here the question arises, whether these user groups develop the CWS spaces differently and how the spatial arrangements of CWSs are in turn adjusted to them. This work has focused on the importance of atmospheres and moods at work and has particularly highlighted the value of communal atmospheres in everyday work. In this regard, it would be interesting to conduct similar studies in conventional corporate contexts and to work out how communal atmospheres are experienced and characterized by employees and managers. That companies have recognized the importance of community for work was elaborated in Sect. 4.3. Thus, aesthetically appealing, playful, focused or communal atmospheres are functionally used in the company’s interest. The fact that community-curating roles have been introduced here as well, show designations such as “Feelgood Manager” or “Chief Happiness Officer”. To what extent the magic of coworking, namely the creation of authentic communal atmospheres with simultaneous non-commitment, can arise here, is to be explored. Ultimately, as this work has emphasized, it is the work subjects themselves who individually experience the spaces and the associated atmospheres and, in the course of appropriating them, create their own atmospheres that feel right for them. At the end, the question remains how coworking will develop in the future. Although the discrepancy between people who work occasionally or regularly at home (well a tenth of the employees) and the workplaces that would allow working from home (or mobile work) (around 40% of the workplaces) was large before the COVID-19 pandemic (and even more people would prefer mobile working) (Papsdorf 2019, p. 127) and although the COVID-19 pandemic initially led primarily to the upswing of working from home, CWSs as alternative workspaces are indispensable. Thus, the COVID-19 pandemic underlines the necessity of CWSs and the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic can even have

458

14  Final Consideration

a positive effect on the CWSs development.10 CWSs represent complementary workplaces to working from home and company headquarters, which is also strongly emphasized in the discussions on the post-pandemic world of work. Not always commuting to the company headquarters and still being able to access professional workspaces near the place of residence and at the same time having a communal environment to which one can feel belonging: It seems like the perfect solution. Compared to working from home, working in the CWS allows a separation of the places of work and private life and the saving of commuting distances to the company headquarters. Political initiatives that highlight the advantages of CWSs also speak for the positive future development of CWSs. For example, in Switzerland in June 2020, seven parliamentarians from seven different parties signed a postulate to promote regional coworking, with the demand to create 100,000 CWS workplaces by 2030 (von Matt 2020). In Germany, there was a postulate in August 2020 from the “Alliance for New Work in the Countryside”, in which the German Coworking Federation is a co-initiator, and which is along the same lines: It calls for a public discussion of a right to mobile work also beyond working from home (Bündnis für Neue Arbeit auf dem Land 2020). These initiatives also refer to the fact that coworking in rural areas will gain in importance in the future and, associated with this, a strengthening of smaller CWSs that are run non-commercially by municipalities or in the form of cooperatives. At the same time, however, CWSs were also affected by the COVID-19 pandemic like other economic sectors and there have been initial closures. Here, one can ask how different CWSs cope with the challenging situation, what strategies they have developed, and which CWSs emerge stronger from the crisis situation and which do not. Another question in this context is also how the different CWSs (and adjacent workspace concepts), whose organizational forms range between top-down and bottom-up, or between the commodity coworking and the true coworking, will coexist in the future or whether there will be conflicts. Will the large CWS chains prevail in the future and cannibalize the small CWSs, as they have larger capital reserves (and thus will resist longer)? Or are they the “true” CWSs, which stand out for their authentic communal atmospheres, which can adapt more flexibly to the new situation and whose members show solidarity even in the crisis, as for example donation campaigns during the COVID-19 pandemic have shown? However, it can be assumed that the diversity of CWS

10 Also, the term “coworking” has gained new meaning for virtual exchange formats of various kinds during and as a result of the “lockdowns”.

14  Final Consideration

459

models will continue to exist. Thus, in the field, the restaurant metaphor already mentioned is also taken up differently: Large fast-food chains are—analogous to top-down organized CWS chains—contrasted with the small owner-managed restaurants of different nationalities—analogous to the bottom-up CWSs. The message behind it: The diversity of models is necessary, as there are also different user groups and associated taste preferences or needs in relation to their own workspaces. And to pick up the quote from Welter and Olma (2011, p. 75) from the beginning of this work again: For the success or failure of CWSs, not least their (work and authentic communal) atmospheres are decisive.

References

Adler, P. S., & Heckscher, C. (2006). Towards Collaborative Community. In Id. (Eds.), The Firm as a Collaborative Community. Reconstructing Trust in the Knowledge Economy (pp. 11–105). New York: Oxford University Press. Amann, K., & Hirschauer, S. (1997). Die Befremdung der eigenen Kultur. Ein Programm. In Id. (Eds.), Die Befremdung der eigenen Kultur. Zur ethnographischen Herausforderung soziologischer Empirie (pp. 7–52). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Andersen, C. (2010). Etablierte und Außenseiter–Zum Kampf um Anerkennung junger Spätaussiedler im öffentlichen Raum. In H. Herrmann (Ed.), RaumErleben. Zur Wahrnehmung des Raumes in Wissenschaft und Praxis. Opladen & Farmington Hills, MI: Barbara Budrich. Anderson, B. (2009). Affective atmospheres. Emotion, Space and Society, 2(2), 77–81. Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-Contact, Distance and Affiliation. Sociometry, 28(3), 289–304. Bachmann, G. (2009). Teilnehmende Beobachtung. In S. Kühl, P. Strodtholz, & A. Taffertshofer (Eds.), Handbuch Methoden der Organisationsforschung (pp. 248–271). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological Psychology. Concepts and Methods for Studying the Environment of Human Behavior. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Barthes, R. (2009). Die helle Kammer. Bemerkung zur Photographie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Bauer, W., Rief, S., Stiefel, K.-P., & Weiß, A. (2014). Faszination Coworking. Potenziale für Unternehmen und ihre Mitarbeiter. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer Verlag. Bauman, Z. (2009). Gemeinschaften. Auf der Suche nach Sicherheit in einer bedrohlichen Welt. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Baumann, M. (2013). Arbeiten im Coworking Space. Eine ethnografische Erkundung des Phänomens „Coworking“ im Citizen Space Zürich. Master's thesis, University of Basel. unpublished document. Becker, C., Kratzer, N., & Lütke Lanfer, S. S. (2019). Neue Arbeitswelten. Wahrnehmung und Wirkung von Open-Space-Büros. Arbeit, 28(3), 263–284. Bender, D. (2013). Mobile Arbeitsplätze als kreative Räume. Coworking Spaces, Cafés und andere urbane Arbeitsorte. Bielefeld: Transcript. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 A. Bernhardt, Coworking Atmospheres, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-41193-0

461

462

References

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (2007). Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit. Eine Theorie der Wissenssoziologie (21st ed.). Frankfurt am Main: Fischer. (English original edition 1966) Bernhardt, A. (2017). Coworking Spaces als ästhetisierte Arbeitsräume. In O. Sutter & V. Flor (Eds.), Ästhetisierung der Arbeit. Empirische Kulturanalysen des kognitiven Kapitalismus (pp. 51–67). Münster, New York: Waxmann. Bernhardt, A. (2021). Coworking-Gemeinschaft aus Sicht der Nutzer*innen. In S. Werther (Ed.), Coworking als Revolution der Arbeitswelt. Von Corporate Coworking bis zu Workation (pp. 51–66). Wiesbaden: Springer. Bernhardt, A. (2022). Hybride Arbeitsräume – die Bedeutung der Atmosphäre. In S. Wörwag & C. Reutlinger (Eds.), Arbeitsräume. Geschichte – Modelle – Visionen. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. Betz, G. J., Hitzler, R., Niederbacher, A., & Schäfer, L. (2017). Hybride Events–Definitionsvorschlag. In Id. (Eds.), Hybride Events. Zur Diskussion zeitgeistiger Veranstaltungen (p. 1). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Beyes, T. (2018). Curating. In T. Beyes & J. Metelmann (Eds.), Der Kreativitätskomplex. Ein Vademecum der Gegenwartsgesellschaft (pp. 173–178). Bielefeld: Transcript. Biehl-Missal, B. (2011). Wirtschaftsästhetik. Wie Unternehmen die Kunst als Inspiration und Werkzeug nutzen [Business aesthetics. How companies use art as inspiration and tool]. Wiesbaden: Gabler. Blagoev, B., Costas, J., & Kärreman, D. (2019). ‘We are all herd animals’: Community and organizationality in coworking spaces. Organization, 26(6), 894–916. Blankspaces. (2009). Simple Rules #1: Headphones. https://vimeo.com/6922393. Boes, A., Kämpf, T., Langes, B., & Lühr, T. (2016). „Lean“ und „agil“ im Büro. Neue Formen der Organisation von Kopfarbeit in der digitalen Transformation [“Lean” and “agile” in the office. New forms of organizing knowledge work in the digital transformation] (No. 23). Düsseldorf: Hans-Böckler-Stiftung. Böhle, F., & Weihrich, M. (2020). Das Konzept der Interaktionsarbeit. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft [Journal of Work Science], 74(1), 9–22. Böhme, G. (2001). Aisthetik: Vorlesungen über Ästhetik als allgemeine Wahrnehmungslehre [Aesthetics: Lectures on aesthetics as a general theory of perception]. München: Wilhelm Fink. Böhme, G. (2013a). Atmosphäre. Essays zur neuen Ästhetik [Atmosphere. Essays on the new aesthetics] (7th ed.). Berlin: Suhrkamp. (first edition 1995) Böhme, G. (2013b). Architektur und Atmosphäre [Architecture and atmosphere] (2nd ed.). München: Wilhelm Fink. Böhme, G. (2013c). Atmosphäre als Grundbegriff einer neuen Ästhetik. In Id. (Ed.), Atmosphäre. Essays zur neuen Ästhetik [Atmosphere. Essays on the new aesthetics] (7th ed., pp. 21–48). Berlin: Suhrkamp. (first edition 1995) Böhme, G. (2016a). Ästhetischer Kapitalismus [Aesthetic capitalism]. Berlin: Suhrkamp. Böhme, G. (2016b). Flanieren in der Shoppingmall. Das Nordwestzentrum in Frankfurt. In Ästhetischer Kapitalismus [Aesthetic capitalism] (pp. 119–131). Berlin: Suhrkamp. Böhme, G. (2018). Atmosphäre als Thema des Designs. In C. Rodatz & P. Smolarski (Eds.), Was ist Public Interest Design? [What is public interest design?] (pp. 273–279). Bielefeld: Transcript.

References

463

Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, E. (2006). Der neue Geist des Kapitalismus [The new spirit of capitalism]. Konstanz: UVK. (French original edition 1999, German first edition 2003) Bolte, K. M. (1983). Subjektorientierte Soziologie–Plädoyer für eine Forschungsperspektive. In K. M. Bolte & E. Treutner (Eds.), Subjektorientierte Arbeits- und Berufssoziologie [Subject-oriented work and occupational sociology] (pp. 12–36). Frankfurt, New York: Campus. Bosch, A., & Mautz, C. (2012). Für eine ästhesiologische Bildhermeneutik, oder: Die Eigenart des Visuellen. Zum Verhältnis von Text und Bild. In Transnationale Vergesellschaftungen. Verhandlungen zum 35. DGS-Kongress in Frankfurt am Main. http://www. archiv.soziologie.phil.uni-erlangen.de/system/files/fuer_eine_aesthesiologische_bildhermeneutik.pdf. Accessed: October 2, 2020. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Physischer, sozialer und angeeigneter physischer Raum. In M. Wentz (Ed.), Stadträume. Die Zukunft des Städtischen. Frankfurter Beiträge Band 2 (pp. 25–34). Frankfurt am Main: Campus. Brake, A. (2009). Photobasierte Befragung. In S. Kühl, P. Strodtholz, & A. Taffertshofer (Eds.), Handbuch Methoden der Organisationsforschung (pp. 369–388). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Brandl, A. (2010). Die gelebte Stadt. Phänomenologische Lesarten. In H. Herrmann (Ed.), RaumErleben. Zur Wahrnehmung des Raumes in Wissenschaft und Praxis (pp. 189– 206). Opladen & Farmington Hills, MI: Barbara Budrich. Breidenstein, G., Hirschauer, S., Kalthoff, H., & Nieswand, B. (2013). Ethnografie. Die Praxis der Feldforschung. Konstanz, München: UVK. Brichetti, K., & Mechsner, F. (2019). Heilsame Architektur. Raumqualitäten erleben, verstehen und entwerfen. Bielefeld: Transcript. Bröckling, U. (2016). Das unternehmerische Selbst. Soziologie einer Subjektivierungsform (6th ed.). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. (First edition 2007) Brown, J. (2017). Curating the “Third Place”? Coworking and the mediation of creativity. Geoforum, 82(April), 112–126. Bündnis für Neue Arbeit auf dem Land. (2020). Für ein Recht auf Mobiles Arbeiten! Positionspapier zur Arbeitswelt nach Corona des Bündnisses für Neue Arbeit auf dem Land. https://www.coworking-germany.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Recht_auf_Mobiles_ Arbeiten_03_08_2020.pdf. Accessed: October 2, 2020. Butcher, T. (2013). Coworking: locating community at work. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Australia New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) Conference, Hobart, Australia, 4–6 December, 2013 (pp. 1–13). https://www.anzam.org/wp-content/ uploads/pdf-manager/118_ANZAM-2013-255.PDF. Accessed: October 2, 2020 Capdevila, I. (2014). Different Entrepreneurial Approaches in Localized Spaces of Collaborative Innovation. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1–14. http://papers.ssrn.com/ abstract=2533448. Accessed: October 2, 2020. Capdevila, I. (2015). Co-Working Spaces and the Localised Dynamics of Innovation in Barcelona. International Journal of Innovation Management, 19(3), 1–28. Cheng, J. C. Y. (2014). An Exploratory Study of Emotional Affordance of a Massive Open Online Course. European Journal of Open, Distance and e‐Learning, 17(1), 43–55. Cnossen, B., & Bencherki, N. (2019). The role of space in the emergence and endurance of organizing: How independent workers and material assemblages constitute organizations. Human Relations, 72(6), 1057–1080.

464

References

Coworking Manifesto. (n.d.). Coworking Manifesto (global–for the world). https://wiki. coworking.org/w/page/35382594/CoworkingManifesto%28global-fortheworld%29. Accessed: August 21, 2020. Coworking Switzerland. (n.d.). The History of Coworking. https://coworking.ch/about/. Accessed: August 21, 2020. Coworking Wiki. (n.d.). Coworking Wiki Frontpage. http://wiki.coworking.com/w/ page/16583831/FrontPage. Accessed: August 21, 2020. CoworkingResources, & Coworker.com. (2020). Global Coworking Growth Study 2020. https://www.coworkingresources.org/blog/key-figures-coworking-growth. Accessed: October 2, 2020. Cunha, M. P. e., Clegg, S. R., & Mendonça, S. (2010). On serendipity and organizing. European Management Journal, 28(5), 319–330. Cunliffe, A. L. (2009). A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book About Management. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, Singapore: Sage. Dale, K., & Burrell, G. (2010). ‚All together, altogether better‘: the ideal of ‚community‘ in the spatial reorganization of the workplace. In A. van Marrewijk & D. Yanow (Eds.), Organizational Spaces. Rematerializing the Workaday World (pp. 19–40). Cheltenham, Northhampton: Edward Elgar. de Peuter, G., Cohen, N. S., & Saraco, F. (2017). The ambivalence of coworking: On the politics of an emerging work practice. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 20(6), 687–706. de Vaujany, F.-X., & Aroles, J. (2019). Nothing happened, something happened: Silence in a makerspace. Management Learning, 50(2), 208–225. 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), 1–12. Deinet, U. (2010). Raumaneignung. In C. Reutlinger, C. Fritsche, & E. Lingg (Eds.), Raumwissenschaftliche Basics. Eine Einführung für die Soziale Arbeit (pp. 35–43). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press. Deskmag. (2018). Ultimate Coworking Space Data Report. Selected Visuals Taken From the 2018 Global Coworking Survey. http://www.deskmag.com/en/background-of-the2018-global-coworking-survey-market-research. Accessed: October 2, 2020. Dierschke, T. (2006). Organisation und Gemeinschaft. Eine Untersuchung der Organisationsstrukturen Intentionaler Gemeinschaften im Hinblick auf Tönnies’ Gemeinschaftsbegriff. In M. Grundmann, T. Dierschke, S. Drucks, & I. Kunze (Eds.), Soziale Gemeinschaften. Experimentierfelder für kollektive Lebensformen (pp. 75–99). Berlin: LIT. Dirksmeier, P. (2009). Urbanität als Habitus. Zur Sozialgeographie städtischen Lebens auf dem Land. Bielefeld: Transcript. Dirksmeier, P. (2013). Zur Methodologie und Performativität qualitativer visueller Methoden – Die Beispiele der Autofotografie und reflexiven Fotografie. In E. Rothfuß & T. Dörfler (Eds.), Raumbezogene qualitative Sozialforschung (pp. 83–101). Wiesbaden: Springer. Döring, J., & Thielmann, T. (2009). Spatial Turn. Das Raumparadigma in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften (2nd ed.). Bielefeld: Transcript.

References

465

Dresing, T., & Pehl, T. (2015). Praxisbuch Interview, Transkription & Analyse. Anleitungen und Regelsysteme für qualitativ Forschende (6th ed.). Marburg: Self-published. Dzudzek, I. (2012). Coworking Space. In N. Marquardt & V. Schreiber (Eds.), Ortsregister. Ein Glossar zu Räumen der Gegenwart (pp. 70–75). Bielefeld: Transcript. Edinger, E.-C. (2015). Wissensraum, Labyrinth, symbolischer Ort. Die Universitätsbibliothek als Sinnbild der Wissenschaft. Konstanz, München: UVK. Edinger, E.-C., & Reimer, R. T. D. (2015). Thirdspace als hybride Lernumgebung. Die Kombination materieller und virtueller Lernräume. In C. Bernhard, K. Kraus, S. Schreiber-Barsch, & R. Stang (Eds.), Erwachsenenbildung und Raum. Theoretische Perspektiven–professionelles Handeln–Rahmungen des Lernens (pp. 205–216). Bielefeld: Bertelsmann. Elias, N., & Scotson, J. L. (1993). Established and Outsiders. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. (English original edition 1965) Fabbri, J. (2016). Unplugged–“Place as spatio-temporal events”: Empirical evidence from everyday life in a coworking space. M@n@gement, 19(4), 353–361. Finckh, G. (2011). Kuratieren. In V. Lewinski-Reuter & S. Lüddemann (Eds.), Glossar Kulturmanagement, (pp. 212–217). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Flade, A. (2008). Architektur: psychologisch betrachtet. Bern: Hans Huber. Flatley, J. (2008). Affective Mapping. Melancholia and the Politics of Modernism. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: Harvard University Press. Flick, U. (2011). Triangulation (3rd ed.). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Foertsch, C. (2014a). Deskmag Global Coworking Survey 2013/14. Coworking Europe Conference 2014. Lisbon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hutCeXQ9Z6Y. Accessed: October 2, 2020. Foertsch, C. (2014b). Die Seele der Coworker. Fraunhofer IAO Zukunftsforum 2014. unpublished document. Foertsch, C. (2017a). Member Demographics. Members of Coworking Spaces–Part 1, Visuals from the 2017 Global Coworking Survey Final Results–Selected Slides. Deskmag. https://www.slideshare.net/carstenfoertsch/members-of-coworking-spaces-demographic-background-global-coworking-survey-80058366. Accessed: October 2, 2020. Foertsch, C. (2017b, September). The Members: Who Works in Coworking Spaces? Deskmag. http://www.deskmag.com/de/die-mitglieder-wer-arbeitet-in-coworkingspaces-coworkers-global-survey-demografie-statistik-977. Accessed: October 2, 2020. Foertsch, C. (2017c, October). The Members: How, When & Why Do They Work in Coworking Spaces? Deskmag. http://www.deskmag.com/en/coworking-space-membershow-when-why-are-people-working-in-coworking-spaces-statistics-market-report. Accessed: October 2, 2020. Foertsch, C. (2018). 2018 Global Coworking Survey: Coworking in Europe. Coworking Europe Conference 2018. Amsterdam. unpublished document. Foertsch, C. (2019, May). 2019 State of Coworking: Over 2 Million Coworking Space Members Expected. Deskmag.com. http://www.deskmag.com/en/2019-state-of-coworking-spaces-2-million-members-growth-crisis-market-report-survey-study. Accessed: October 2, 2020. Foertsch, C., & Cagnol, R. (2013, August). Es war einmal... Die Geschichte von Coworking in Zahlen. Deskmag. http://www.deskmag.com/de/die-geschichte-von-coworkingspaces-in-zahlen-zeitleiste-868. Accessed: October 2, 2020.

466

References

Friebe, H., & Lobo, S. (2007). Wir nennen es Arbeit. Die digitale Boheme oder: Intelligentes Leben jenseits der Festanstellung (5th ed.). Munich: Heyne. Fritsche, C., Lingg, E., & Reutlinger, C. (2010). Raumwissenschaftliche Basics–eine Einleitung. In Id. (Ed.), Raumwissenschaftliche Basics. Eine Einführung für die Soziale Arbeit (pp. 11–24). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Fritz, H.-J. (1982). Menschen in Büroarbeitsräumen. Munich: Heinz Moos. Fuzi, A. (2015). Co-working spaces for promoting entrepreneurship in sparse regions: the case of South Wales. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 2(1), 462–469. Gandini, A. (2015). The rise of coworking spaces: A literature review. ephemera. theory & politics in organization, 15(1), 193–205. 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), 821–842. Gerdenitsch, C., Scheel, T. E., Andorfer, J., & Korunka, C. (2016). Coworking Spaces: A Source of Social Support for Independent Professionals. Frontiers in Psychology, 7:581, 1–12. Gertenbach, L., Laux, H., Rosa, H., & Strecker, D. (2010). Theorien der Gemeinschaft zur Einführung. Hamburg: Junius. Gibson, J. J. (1982). Wahrnehmung und Umwelt. Der ökologische Ansatz in der visuellen Wahrnehmung. Munich, Vienna, Baltimore: Urban & Schwarzenberg. Giddens, A. (1988). Die Konstitution der Gesellschaft. Grundzüge einer Theorie der Strukturierung. Frankfurt, New York: Campus. Glaser, B. G., & with the collaboration of Judith A. Holton. (2011). Der Umbau der Grounded-Theory-Methodologie. In Grounded Theory Reader (pp. 137–161). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Goffman, E. (1964). The Neglected Situation. American Anthropologist, 66(6), 133–136. Goffman, E. (2005). Wir alle spielen Theater. Die Selbstdarstellung im Alltag (3rd ed.). Munich, Zurich: Piper. (first edition 1969, English original edition 1959). Gottschall, K., & Voß, G. G. (2003). Entgrenzung von Arbeit und Leben. Zum Wandel der Beziehung von Erwerbstätigkeit und Privatsphäre im Alltag. Munich and Mering: Rainer Hampp Verlag. Griffero, T. (2014). Atmospheres: Aesthetics of Emotional Spaces. Farnham, Burlington: Ashgate. Gruszka, K. (2017). Framing the collaborative economy — Voices of contestation. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23, 92–104. Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2016). The Sharing Economy: Why People Participate in Collaborative Consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(9), 2047–2059. Hannonen, O. (2020). In search of a digital nomad: defining the phenomenon. Information Technology & Tourism. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40558-020-00177-z. Accessed: October 2, 2020. Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17(1), 13–26. Hartmann, M. (2016). Coworking oder auch die (De-)Mediatisierung von Arbeit. In J. Wimmer & M. Hartmann (Eds.), Medien-Arbeit im Wandel. Theorie und Empirie zur Arbeit mit und in Medien (pp. 177–204). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

References

467

Hasse, J. (2014). Der pathische Raum. Die Leiblichkeit bestimmt die Stadtwahrnehmung. In A. Denk & U. Schröder (Eds.), Stadt der Räume (pp. 63–68). Tübingen, Berlin: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag. Haug, W. F. (2009). Kritik der Warenästhetik. Überarbeitete Neuausgabe. Gefolgt von Warenästhetik im High-Tech-Kapitalismus. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. (Original edition Critique of commodity aesthetics 1971). Heibach, C. (2012). Einleitung. In Id. (Ed.), Atmosphären. Dimensionen eines diffusen Phänomens (pp. 9–24). Munich: Wilhelm Fink. Heidegger, M. (2006). Sein und Zeit (19th ed.). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. (Original edition 1927). Hellbrück, J., & Fischer, M. (1999). Umweltpsychologie. Ein Lehrbuch. Göttingen, Bern, Toronto, Seattle: Hogrefe. Hellbrück, J., & Kals, E. (2012). Raum und gebaute Umwelt. In Id. (Ed.), Umweltpsychologie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Herrmann, H. (2010). Raumbegriffe und Forschungen zum Raum–eine Einleitung. In Id. (Ed.), RaumErleben. Zur Wahrnehmung des Raumes in Wissenschaft und Praxis (pp. 7–29). Opladen & Farmington Hills, MI: Barbara Budrich. Hertwig, M., & Papsdorf, C. (2017). Varieties of Sharing. Handlungsorientierungen, Strukturen und Arbeitsbedingungen eines neuartigen Feldes. Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 27, 521–546. Hillebrandt, F. (2014). Soziologische Praxistheorien. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Hitzler, R., & Eberle, T. S. (2013). Phänomenologische Lebensweltanalyse. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch (10th ed., pp. 109–118). Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Hitzler, R., & Eisewicht, P. (2016). Lebensweltanalytische Ethnographie–im Anschluss an Anne Honer. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Juventa. Hitzler, R., & Gothe, M. (2015). Zur Einleitung. Methodologisch-methodische Aspekte ethnographischer Forschungsprojekte. In Id. (Eds.), Ethnographische Erkundungen. Methodische Aspekte aktueller Forschungsprojekte (pp. 9–16). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Hitzler, R., Honer, A., & Pfadenhauer, M. (2008). Zur Einleitung: „Ärgerliche“ Gesellungsgebilde? In Id. (Eds.), Posttraditionale Gemeinschaften. Theoretische und ethnografische Erkundungen (pp. 9–31). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Hochschild, A. R. (2006). Das gekaufte Herz. Die Kommerzialisierung der Gefühle (2nd ed.). Frankfurt am Main, New York: Campus. (English original edition 1983) Honer, A. (1989). Einige Probleme lebensweltlicher Ethnographie. Zur Methodologie und Methodik einer interpretativen Sozialforschung. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 18(4), 297– 312. Honer, A. (2011a). Kleine Leiblichkeiten. Erkundungen in Lebenswelten. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Honer, A. (2011b). Bausteine zu einer lebensweltorientierten Wissenssoziologie. In Id. (Ed.), Kleine Leiblichkeiten. Erkundungen in Lebenswelten (pp. 11–26). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Honer, A. (2013). Lebensweltanalyse in der Ethnographie. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch (10th ed., pp. 194–204). Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.

468

References

Honneth, A. (1993). Posttraditionale Gemeinschaften. Ein konzeptueller Vorschlag. In M. Brumlik & H. Brunkhorst (Eds.), Gemeinschaft und Gerechtigkeit (pp. 260–270). Frankfurt am Main: Fischer. Hüllemann, U., Reutlinger, C., & Deinet, U. (2017). Aneignung als strukturierendes Element des Sozialraums. In F. Kessel & C. Reutlinger (Eds.), Handbuch Sozialraum (pp. 1–18). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Illouz, E. (2018). Einleitung–Gefühle als Waren. In E. Illouz (Ed.), Wa(h)re Gefühle. Authentizität im Konsumkapitalismus (pp. 13–48). Berlin: Suhrkamp. Ivaldi, S., Pais, I., & Scaratti, G. (2018). Coworking(s) in the Plural: Coworking Spaces and New Ways of Managing. In S. Taylor & S. Luckman (Eds.), The New Normal of Working Lives. Critical Studies in Contemporary Work and Employment (pp. 219–241). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Jakonen, M., Kivinen, N., Salovaara, P., & Hirkman, P. (2017). Towards an Economy of Encounters? A critical study of affectual assemblages in coworking. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 33(4), 235–242. Josef, B., & Back, A. (2018). Coworking as a New Innovation Scenario from the Perspective of Mature Organisations. In 6th International OFEL Conference on Governance, Management and Entrepreneurship New Business Models and Institutional Entrepreneurs: Leading Disruptive Change (pp. 491–507). Dubrovnik. Julmi, C. (2015). Atmosphären in Organisationen. Wie Gefühle das Zusammenleben in Organisationen beherrschen. Bochum, Freiburg: Projekt Verlag. Kajetzke, L., & Schroer, M. (2012). Space Studies. In S. Moebius (Ed.), Kultur. Von den Cultural Studies bis zu den Visual Studies (pp. 196–215). Bielefeld: Transcript. Kalthoff, H. (2016). Die Darstellung der Ökonomie. Überlegungen zu einer empirischen Theorie der Praxis. In H. Schäfer (Ed.), Praxistheorie. Ein soziologisches Forschungsprogramm (pp. 223–243). Bielefeld: Transcript. Kelle, U., & Kluge, S. (2010). Vom Einzelfall zum Typus. Fallvergleich und Fallkontrastierung in der qualitativen Sozialforschung (2nd ed.). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Kingma, S. F. (2016). The constitution of ‚third workspaces‘ in between the home and the corporate office. New Technology, Work and Employment, 31(2), 176–193. Kleemann, F. (2003). Zur Re-Integration von Arbeit und Leben in Teleheimarbeit. In K. Gottschall & G. G. Voß (Eds.), Entgrenzung von Arbeit und Leben. Zum Wandel der Beziehung von Erwerbstätigkeit und Privatsphäre im Alltag (pp. 59–85). München und Mering: Rainer Hampp Verlag. Kleemann, F. (2005). Die Wirklichkeit der Teleheimarbeit. Eine arbeitssoziologische Untersuchung. Berlin: edition sigma. Kleemann, F., Matuschek, I., & Voß, G. G. (2003). Subjektivierung von Arbeit. Ein Überblick zum Stand der Diskussion. In M. Moldaschl & G. G. Voß (Eds.), Subjektivierung von Arbeit. (2nd ed., pp. 57–114). Munich and Mering: Rainer Hampp Verlag. Klug, T., Henn, R., & Schmiede, R. (2005). Büroarbeit im Wandel. In J. Eisele & B. Staniek (Eds.), Bürobau Atlas (pp. 10–19). Munich: Callwey. Klemmt, J. (2017). BarCamps. Zur Kausalität von Web 2.0 und plattformbasierter Konferenz. In G. J. Betz, R. Hitzler, A. Niederbacher, & L. Schäfer (Eds.), Hybride Events. Zur Diskussion zeitgeistiger Veranstaltungen (pp. 121–135). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Kolb, B. (2008). Involving, Sharing, Analysing–Potential of the Participatory Photo Interview. 9(3). http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1155. Accessed: October 2, 2020.

References

469

Koschel, J. (2014). „Smells like Teamspirit“. Ethnologische Einblicke in die Kultur eines Coworking Space. Munich: Herbert Utz Verlag. Krämer, H. (2017). Was ist ästhetisch an ästhetischer Arbeit? Zur Praxis und Kritik zeitgenössischer Erwerbstätigkeit. In O. Sutter & V. Flor (Eds.), Ästhetisierung der Arbeit. Empirische Kulturanalysen des kognitiven Kapitalismus (pp. 277–292). Münster, New York: Waxmann. Kratzer, N. (2003). Arbeitskraft in Entgrenzung. Grenzenlose Anforderungen, erweiterte Spielräume, begrenzte Ressourcen. Berlin: edition sigma. Kratzer, N. (2017). Open Space. Oder was? Wandel der Büroarbeitswelt. München. ISF München. Kreckel, R. (2004). Politische Soziologie der sozialen Ungleichheit (3rd ed.). Frankfurt am Main, New York: Campus. (first edition 1992) Kruse, J. (2015). Qualitative Interviewforschung. Ein integrativer Ansatz (2nd ed.). Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Juventa. Kuckartz, U. (2006). Zwischen Singularität und Allgemeingültigkeit: Typenbildung als qualitative Strategie der Verallgemeinerung. In K.-S. Rehberg (Eds.), Soziale Ungleichheit, kulturelle Unterschiede: Verhandlungen des 32. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in München. Teilbd. 1 und 2 (pp. 4047–4056). Frankfurt am Main: Campus. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-142318. Accessed: October 2, 2020 Kuckartz, U. (2014). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung (2nd ed.). Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Juventa. Kurt, R., & Herbrik, R. (2014). Sozialwissenschaftliche Hermeneutik und hermeneutische Wissenssoziologie. In N. Baur & J. Blasius (Eds.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (pp. 473–491). Wiesbaden: Springer. Leimeister, J. M., Durward, D., & Zogaj, S. (2016). Crowd Worker in Deutschland. Eine empirische Studie zum Arbeitsumfeld auf externen Crowdsourcing-Plattformen. Study, No. 323. Hans-Böckler-Stiftung. Düsseldorf. https://www.boeckler.de/pdf/p_study_ hbs_323.pdf. Accessed: October 2, 2020 Liegl, M. (2011). Die Sorge um den Raum. Mediale Ortlosigkeit und Dispositive der Verortung. In J. Engelmann, H. Adam, F. Schneider, S. Vogel, & J. Ullmaier (Eds.), Testcard. Beiträge zur Popgeschichte #20: Access Denied–Ortsverschiebungen in der realen und virtuellen Gegenwart (pp. 182–189). Mainz: Ventil Verlag. Liegl, M. (2014). Nomadicity and the Care of Place–On the Aesthetic and Affective Organization of Space in Freelance Creative Work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 23(2), 163–183. Löw, M. (2008). The Constitution of Space. The Structuration of Spaces Through the Simultaneity of Effect and Perception. European Journal of Social Theory, 11(1), 25–49. Löw, M. (2015). Raumsoziologie (8th ed.). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. (First edition 2001) Löw, M. (2018). Vom Raum aus die Stadt denken. Grundlagen einer raumtheoretischen Stadtsoziologie. Bielefeld: Transcript. Löw, M., Steets, S., & Stoetzer, S. (2008). Einführung in die Stadt- und Raumsoziologie (2nd ed.). Opladen & Farmington Hills, MI: Barbara Budrich. Maffesoli, M. (1996). The Time of the Tribes: The Decline of Individualism in Mass Society. London: Sage. Maier, M. F., & Ivanov, B. (2018). Selbstständige Erwerbstätigkeit in Deutschland. Forschungsbericht, Nr. 514. Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung. Mannheim.

470

References

https://www.bmas.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/PDF-Publikationen/Forschungsberichte/fb514-selbststaendige-erwerbstaetigkeit-in-deutschland.pdf. Accessed: October 2, 2020. Marchart, O. (2012). Das kuratorische Subjekt. Die Figur des Kurators zwischen Individualität und Kollektivität. Texte zur Kunst, 22(86), 29–41. Massey, D. (2005). For Space. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage. Matuschek, I., Kleemann, F., & Brinkhoff, C. (2004). „Bringing Subjectivity back in“ Notwendige Ergänzungen zum Konzept des Arbeitskraftunternehmers. In H. J. Pongratz & G. G. Voß (Eds.), Typisch Arbeitskraftunternehmer? Befunde der empirischen Arbeitsforschung (pp. 115–138). Berlin: edition sigma. McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6–23. Merkel, J. (2012). Auf der Suche nach Austausch. Digitale Nomaden und Coworking Spaces. WZB Mitteilungen, 136, 15–17. https://bibliothek.wzb.eu/artikel/2012/f-17215. pdf. Accessed: October 9, 2020. Merkel, J. (2014). Gärtner der urbanen Arbeitswelt. Wie Coworking Spaces kuratiert werden. WZB Mitteilungen, 145(September), 21–22. https://bibliothek.wzb.eu/ artikel/2014/f-18640.pdf. Accessed: October 9, 2020. Merkel, J. (2015). Coworking in the city. ephemera. theory & politics in organization, 15(1), 121–139. Merkel, J. (2018a). Coworking: das Arbeitsmodell der Zukunft? In H. Pechlaner & E. Innerhofer (Eds.), Temporäre Konzepte. Coworking und Coliving als Perspektive für die Regionalentwicklung (pp. 33–44). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Merkel, J. (2018b). “Freelance isn’t free.” Co-working as a critical urban practice to cope with informality in creative labour markets. Urban Studies, (Transcending (in)formal urbanism), 1–22. Merkel, J., & Oppen, M. (2013). Coworking Spaces: Die (Re-)Organisation kreativer Arbeit (No. 16). http://bibliothek.wzb.eu/wzbrief-arbeit/WZBriefArbeit162013_merkel_oppen.pdf. Accessed: October 2, 2020. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1974). Phänomenologie der Wahrnehmung (Reprint.). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co. (First edition 1966, French original edition 1945). Merleau-Ponty, M. (1986). Das Sichtbare und das Unsichtbare. Munich: Wilhelm Fink. (French original edition 1964). Mey, G., & Mruck, K. (2011). Grounded-Theory-Methodologie: Entwicklung, Stand, Perspektiven. In Id. (Ed.), Grounded Theory Reader (2nd ed., pp. 11–48). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Michels, C. (2015). Researching affective atmospheres. Geographica Helvetica, 70(4), 255–263. Michels, C., & Steyaert, C. (2017). By accident and by design: Composing affective atmospheres in an urban art intervention. Organization, 24(1), 79–104. Michels, C., & Steyaert, C. (2018). Atmosphere. In T. Beyes & J. Metelmann (Eds.), Der Kreativitätskomplex. Ein Vademecum der Gegenwartsgesellschaft (pp. 44–49). Bielefeld: Transcript. Minssen, H. (2000). Begrenzte Entgrenzungen. Wandlungen von Organisation und Arbeit. Berlin: edition sigma. Minssen, H. (2012). Arbeit in der modernen Gesellschaft. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

References

471

Moriset, B. (2014). Building New Places of the Creative Economy. The Rise of Coworking Spaces. 2nd Geography of Innovation International Conference 2014. Utrecht University, Utrecht, 23–25 January 2014. Moulier-Boutang, Y. (2001). Marx in Kalifornien: Der dritte Kapitalismus und die alte politische Ökonomie. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, B 52–53, 29–37. Müller, A. K. (2018). Coworking Spaces. Urbane Räume im Kontext flexibler Arbeitswelten. Münster: LIT. Neuberg, B. (n.d.). Coworking: Community Office Space for Writers and Programmers. Coding in Paradise. http://codinginparadise.org/coworking/. Accessed: August 21, 2020. Neuberg, B. (2005). Coworking–Community for Developers Who Work From Home. Coding in Paradise. http://codinginparadise.org/weblog/2005/08/coworking-communityfor-developers-who.html. Accessed: August 21, 2020. Oldenburg, R. (1997). The Great Good Place. Cafés, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, And Other Hangouts At The Heart Of A Community (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Da Capo Press. Opielka, M. (2006). Gemeinschaft in Gesellschaft. Soziologie nach Hegel und Parsons (2nd ed.). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Orel, M., & Alonso Almeida, M. del M. (2019). The Ambience of Collaboration in Coworking Environments. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 21(4), 273–289. Panofsky, E. (2006). Ikonographie und Ikonologie. Bildinterpretation nach dem Dreistufenmodell. Cologne: DuMont. Papsdorf, C. (2009). Wie Surfen zu Arbeit wird. Crowdsourcing im Web 2.0. Frankfurt am Main, New York: Campus. Papsdorf, C. (2019). Digitale Arbeit. Eine soziologische Einführung. Frankfurt am Main, New York: Campus. Parrino, L. (2015). Coworking: assessing the role of proximity in knowledge exchange. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 13(3), 261–271. Petendra, B. (2015). Räumliche Dimensionen der Büroarbeit. Eine Analyse des flexiblen Büros und seiner Akteure. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Petersen, N. J., & Østergaard, S. (2003). Organisational Photography as a Research Method: What, How and Why. Academy of Management Conference Proceedings. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.561.250&rep=rep1&type= pdf. Accessed: October 2, 2020. Pink, S., Hjorth, L., Horst, H., Nettheim, J., & Bell, G. (2018). Digital work and play: Mobile technologies and new ways of feeling at home. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 21(1), 26–38. Pink, S., Leder Mackley, K., & Moroşanu, R. (2015). Researching in atmospheres: video and the ‚feel‘ of the mundane. Visual Communication, 14(3), 351–369. Plessner, H. (1940). Das Problem von Lachen und Weinen. Tijdschrift voor Philosophie, 2(2/3), 317–384. Plessner, H. (2002). Grenzen der Gemeinschaft. Eine Kritik des sozialen Radikalismus (2nd ed.). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. (first edition 1924). Pohler, N. (2012). Neue Arbeitsräume für neue Arbeitsformen: Coworking Spaces. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 37(1), 65–78.

472

References

Pongratz, H. J., & Bormann, S. (2017). Online-Arbeit auf Internet-Plattformen. Empirische Befunde zum ‚Crowdworking‘ in Deutschland. Arbeits- und Industriesoziologische Studien, 10(2), 158–181. Pongratz, H. J., & Voß, G. G. (2004). Arbeitskraftunternehmer. Erwerbsorientierungen in entgrenzten Arbeitsformen. Berlin: edition sigma. Prinz, S. (2012). Büros zwischen Disziplin und Design. Postfordistische Ästhetisierungen der Arbeitswelt. In S. Prinz & S. Moebius (Eds.), Das Design der Gesellschaft. Zur Kultursoziologie des Designs (pp. 245–271). Bielefeld: Transcript. Prisching, M. (2008). Paradoxien der Vergemeinschaftung. In R. Hitzler, A. Honer, & M. Pfadenhauer (Eds.), Posttraditionale Gemeinschaften. Theoretische und ethnografische Erkundungen (pp. 35–54). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Przyborski, A., & Wohlrab-Sahr, M. (2014). Qualitative Sozialforschung. Ein Arbeitsbuch (4th ed.). München: Oldenbourg Verlag. Rau, S. (2013). Räume. Konzepte, Wahrnehmungen, Nutzungen. Frankfurt am Main, New York: Campus. Rauh, A. (2014). Die besondere Atmosphäre. Ästhetische Feldforschungen. Bielefeld: Transcript. Rauh, A. (2018). Bruchlinien. Das Atmosphärenkonzept in Theorie und Praxis. In L. Pfaller & B. Wiesse (Eds.), Stimmungen und Atmosphären. Zur Affektivität des Sozialen (pp. 125–144). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Reckwitz, A. (2003). Grundelemente einer Theorie sozialer Praktiken. Eine sozialtheoretische Perspektive. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 32(4), 282–301. Reckwitz, A. (2012). Affective spaces: A praxeological outlook. Rethinking History, 16(2), 241–258. Reckwitz, A. (2014). Die Erfindung der Kreativität. Zum Prozess gesellschaftlicher Ästhetisierung (4th ed.). Berlin: Suhrkamp. Reckwitz, A. (2016). Practices and their affects. In H. Schäfer (Ed.), Praxistheorie. Ein soziologisches Forschungsprogramm (pp. 163–180). Bielefeld: Transcript. Reckwitz, A. (2017). Die Gesellschaft der Singularitäten. Zum Strukturwandel der Moderne. Berlin: Suhrkamp. Reichertz, J. (2012). Die lebensweltliche Ethnografie von Anne Honer. Zum Tode einer Freundin und Kollegin. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 13(2). http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1822/3359. Accessed: October 2, 2020. Reichertz, J. (2013). Gemeinsam interpretieren. Die Gruppeninterpretation als kommunikativer Prozess. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Renda, C. (2018). Einige Überlegungen zu Stimmung als situationssoziologischer Kategorie. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 70(4), 629–654. Reuschl, A. J., & Bouncken, R. B. (2017). Coworking-Spaces als neue Organisationsform in der Sharing Economy. In M. Bruhn & K. Hadwich (Eds.), Dienstleistungen 4.0. Wiesbaden: Springer. RGCS. (2016). Coworkers, makers and hackers in the city: reinventing policies, corporate strategies and citizenship? RGCS White Paper (No. Omega Version). https://collaborativespacesstudy.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/rgcs_white_paper_omega.pdf. Accessed: October 2, 2020. Rosenthal, G. (2014). Interpretative Sozialforschung (5th ed.). Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Juventa.

References

473

Ruiner, C., & Wilkesmann, M. (2016). Arbeits- und Industriesoziologie. Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink. Rus, A., & Orel, M. (2015). Coworking: A community of work. Teorija in Praksa, 52(6), 1017–1038. Sargas. (2016a). Website. Website not available Sargas. (2016b). Facebook page. Sasse, M. (2015). Über die Kunst zu begeistern, Wegbegleiter und das Theater. Maske und Kothurn. Internationale Beiträge zur Theater-, Film- und Medienwissenschaft, 61(3–4), 155–159. Schäfer, H. (2016). Einleitung. Grundlagen, Rezeption und Forschungsperspektiven der Praxistheorie. In Id. (Ed.), Praxistheorie. Ein soziologisches Forschungsprogramm (pp. 9–25). Bielefeld: Transcript. Schäfers, B. (2010). Architektursoziologie In G. Kneer & M. Schroer (Eds.), Handbuch Spezielle Soziologien (pp. 37–50). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Schäfers, B. (2014). Architektursoziologie. Grundlagen–Epochen–Themen (3rd ed.). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Scheffer, T. (2002). Das Beobachten als sozialwissenschaftliche Methode–von den Grenzen der Beobachtbarkeit und ihrer methodischen Bearbeitung. In D. Schaeffer & G. MüllerMundt (Eds.), Qualitative Gesundheits- und Pflegeforschung (pp. 351–374). Bern: Huber. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-5093. Accessed: October 2, 2020. Schmidt, R. (2012). Die Verheißungen eines sauberen Kragens. Zur materiellen und symbolischen Ordnung des Büros. In Id. (Ed.), Soziologie der Praktiken. Konzeptionelle Studien und empirische Analysen (pp. 130–155). Berlin: Suhrkamp. Schmidt, S., & Brinks, V. (2017). Open creative labs: Spatial settings at the intersection of communities and organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 26, 291–299. Schmidt, S., Ibert, O., Kuebart, A., & Kühn, J. (2016). Open Creative Labs in Deutschland. Typologisierung, Verbreitung und Entwicklungsbedingungen. Erkner: IRS Leibniz-Institut für Raumbezogene Forschung. Schmitz, H. (2014). Atmosphären. Freiburg, Munich: Karl Alber. Schmitz, H. (2015). Der Leib, der Raum und die Gefühle. Bielefeld: Aisthesis Verlag. Schraubenfabrik. (2020). Website. http://www.schraubenfabrik.at/. Accessed: August 21, 2020. Schreier, M. (2014). Varianten qualitativer Inhaltsanalyse: Ein Wegweiser im Dickicht der Begrifflichkeiten. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 15(1). http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/2043/3636. Accessed: October 2, 2020. Schroer, M. (2009). „Bringing space back in“–Zur Relevanz des Raums als soziologischer Kategorie. In J. Döring & T. Thielmann (Eds.), Spatial Turn. Das Raumparadigma in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften (pp. 125–148). Bielefeld: Transcript. Schroer, M. (2010). Raum und Wissen. In A. Engelhardt & L. Kajetzke (Eds.), Handbuch Wissensgesellschaft. Theorien, Themen und Probleme (pp. 281–291). Bielefeld: Transcript. Schroer, M. (2016). Räume, Orte, Grenzen. Auf dem Weg zu einer Soziologie des Raumes (5th ed.). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Schulze, B. (2009a). Exkurs: Affordanzkonzept nach Gibson. In P. G. Richter (Ed.), Architekturpsychologie. Eine Einführung (3rd ed., pp. 79–88). Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.

474

References

Schulze, B. (2009b). Der Behavior-Setting Ansatz. In P. G. Richter (Ed.), Architekturpsychologie. Eine Einführung (3rd ed., pp. 41–52). Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers. Sennett, R. (1998). Der flexible Mensch. Die Kultur des neuen Kapitalismus. Berlin: Berlin Verlag. Sergot, B., & Saives, A.-L. (2016). Unplugged–Relating place to organization: A situated tribute to Doreen Massey. M@n@gement, 19(4), 335–352. Spath, D., Bauer, W., & Braun, M. (2011). Gesundes und erfolgreiches Arbeiten im Büro. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. Spinuzzi, C. (2012). Working Alone Together: Coworking as Emergent Collaborative Activity. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26(4), 399–441. Spinuzzi, C., Bodrožić, Z., Scaratti, G., & Ivaldi, S. (2019). „Coworking Is About Community“: But What Is „Community“ in Coworking? Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 33(2), 112–140. St. Oberholz. (2020). Website. https://sanktoberholz.de/. Accessed: August 21, 2020 Staniek, B. (2005). Büroorganisationsformen. In J. Eisele & B. Staniek (Eds.), Bürobau Atlas. Grundlagen, Planung, Technologie, Arbeitsplatzqualitäten (pp. 54–67). Munich: Callwey. Steets, S. (2015). Der sinnhafte Aufbau der gebauten Umwelt. Eine Architektursoziologie. Berlin: Suhrkamp. Strübing, J. (2013). Qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine komprimierte Einführung. Munich: Oldenbourg Verlag. Strübing, J., Hirschauer, S., Ayaß, R., Krähnke, U., & Scheffer, T. (2018). Gütekriterien qualitativer Sozialforschung. Ein Diskussionsanstoß. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 47(2), 83–100. Sturm, G. (2000). Wege zum Raum. Methodologische Annäherungen an ein Basiskonzept raumbezogener Wissenschaften. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Tabit. (2015). Website. Website not available The Creative Space. (2012). Headphone Rules. https://thecreativespace.ca/headphonerules/. Accessed: October 2, 2020. Tönnies, F. (1963). Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundbegriffe der reinen Soziologie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. (first edition 1887). Vilnai-Yavetz, I., Rafaeli, A., & Schneider Yaacov, C. (2005). Instrumentality, Aesthetics, and Symbolism of Office Design. Environment and Behavior, 37(4), 533–551. von Bismarck, B. (2004). Curating. In C. Tannert & U. Tischler (Eds.), Men in Black. Handbuch der kuratorischen Praxis (pp. 108–110). Frankfurt am Main: Revolver– Archiv für aktuelle Kunst. von Bismarck, B. (2012). Curating Curators. Texte zur Kunst, 22(86), 43–61. von Matt, O. (2020, June 16). 100 000 new coworking spaces? St. Galler Tagblatt, p. 7. St. Gallen. Voß, G. G. (1998). Die Entgrenzung von Arbeit und Arbeitskraft. Eine subjektorientierte Interpretation des Wandels der Arbeit. Mitteilungen aus der Arbeitsmarkt-und Berufsforschung, 31(3), 473–487. http://doku.iab.de/mittab/1998/1998_3_MittAB_Voß.pdf. Accessed: October 2, 2020. Voß, G. G., & Pongratz, H. J. (1998). Der Arbeitskraftunternehmer. Eine neue Grundform der Ware Arbeitskraft? Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 50(1), 131–158.

References

475

Voß, G. G., & Rieder, K. (2005). Der arbeitende Kunde. Wenn Konsumenten zu unbezahlten Mitarbeitern werden. Frankfurt am Main, New York: Campus. Voß, G. G., & Weiß, C. (2005). Subjektivierung von Arbeit–Subjektivierung von Arbeitskraft. In I. Kurz-Scherf, L. Correll, & S. Janczyk (Eds.), In Arbeit: Zukunft. Die Zukunft der Arbeit und der Arbeitsforschung liegt in ihrem Wandel (pp. 139–153). Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot. Voß, G. G., & Weiß, C. (2014). Burnout und Depression Leiterkrankungen des subjektivierten Kapitalismus oder: Woran leidet der Arbeitskraftunternehmer? In S. Neckel & G. Wagner (Eds.), Leistung und Erschöpfung. Burnout in der Wettbewerbsgesellschaft (2nd ed., pp. 29–57). Berlin: Suhrkamp. Warren, S. (2002). „Show Me How it Feels to Work Here“: Using Photography to Research Organizational Aesthetics. ephemera.critical dialogues on organization, 2(3), 224–245. Warren, S. (2005). Consuming Work: An exploration of organizational aestheticization. Business School, University of Portsmouth. Waters-Lynch, J., & Duff, C. (2019). The Affective Commons of Coworking. Human Relations, (1–22). Waters-Lynch, J., & Potts, J. (2017). The social economy of coworking spaces: A focal point model of coordination. Review of Social Economy, 75(4), 417–433. Waters-Lynch, J., Potts, J., Butcher, T., Dodson, J., & Hurley, J. (2016). Coworking: A Transdisciplinary Overview. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=2712217. Accessed: October 2, 2020. Weber, M. (2013). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Soziologie. Unvollendet 1919–1920. I/23. (K. Borchardt, E. Hanke, & W. Schluchter, Eds.). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. (Original edition 1921) Weichhart, P. (2003). Gesellschaftlicher Metabolismus und Action Settings. Die Verknüpfung von Sach- und Sozialstrukturen im alltagsweltlichen Handeln. In P. Meusberger & T. Schwan (Eds.), Humanökologie. Ansätze zur Überwindung der Natur-Kultur-Dichotomie (pp. 15–44). Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. Weichhart, P. (2018). Entwicklungslinien der Sozialgeographie. Von Hans Bobek bis Benno Werlen (2nd ed.). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Welskop-Deffaa, E. M. (2018). Erwerbsverläufe digitaler Nomaden. Hybridisierung der Beschäftigungsmuster in der digitalen Transformation. In A. D. Bührmann, U. Fachinger, & E. M. Welskop-Deffaa (Eds.), Hybride Erwerbsformen. Digitalisierung, Diversität und sozialpolitische Gestaltungsoptionen (pp. 107–129). Wiesbaden: Springer. Welter, T., & Olma, S. (2011). Das Beta-Prinzip. Coworking und die Zukunft der Arbeit. Berlin: Blumenbar Verlag und betahaus. Wiesse, B., & Pfaller, L. (2018). Affektive Gestimmtheiten in den Sozial- und Kulturwissenschaften. In Id. (Eds.), Stimmungen und Atmosphären. Zur Affektivität des Sozialen (pp. 1–23). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Wilz, S. M. (2020). Praxistheorie und Organisationsforschung. Anthony Giddens. In M. Apelt, I. Bode, R. Hasse, U. Meyer, V. V. Groddeck, M. Wilkesmann, & A. Windeler (Eds.), Handbuch Organisationssoziologie. Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften. (pp. 1–19). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-15953-5_13-1.