Search results

While there is anecdotal evidence that internationally mobile workers often form isolated nation-based communities or “expatriate bubbles,” previous academic scholarship on the expatriate communities and their subjective boundaries is limited. The primary purpose of this article is to advance the theoretical or conceptual understanding of expatriate communities as bubbles.

As developed by Lamont and Molnár (2002), the theory of symbolic boundaries is applied and set to scrutinize the production and maintenance of insulated expatriate communities. Empirically, an ethnographic study of a community of Finnish expatriates in a Southeast Asian country is undertaken to describe how symbolic boundaries are constructed.

The main theoretical implication of the paper is the recognition that expatriates themselves are involved in creating the “bubble.” The boundaries separating the national expatriate community are not externally imposed but can be viewed as consequences of the active boundary work of the expatriates. The empirical study demonstrates how the Finnish expatriates negotiated the symbolic boundaries of their community, drawing on cultural, moral and spatial modalities in different levels of boundary work.

There need to be more systematic attempts to develop a theoretically grounded understanding of insulated expatriate communities and their boundaries. This article contributes to the sociological conceptualization of expatriate bubbles by utilizing the symbolic boundary approach, which adds perspective to the embryonic theory of the subjective boundaries of expatriate communities. The multiplicity of different types of symbolic boundaries and their modalities suggests that an expatriate bubble is rarely a finished state or structure.

The purpose of this paper is to advance the methodological self‐understanding of the emerging field of organizational space and architecture by employing concepts and frameworks from multi‐paradigm and mixed methods research.

The paper presents a methodological re‐reading of a recent research process that analyzed the spatial and architectural dynamics in a Finnish university organization.

While the analysis of architectural meanings is often grounded in researcher‐participants auto‐ethnographic experiences, triangulating personal insights with other methods is important for the validity and richness of the subsequent description of spatial dynamics and its outcomes. Especially, the incorporation of architectural visions and representations into the analysis is argued to enhance our understanding of the emergence of particular social‐material collectives.

Although there is a steady stream of empirical studies on the meanings of organizational space and architecture, rigorous accounts of the methodological challenges of spatial analyses have so far been scarce. This paper aims to partially fill this gap.

The purpose of this paper is to report a study of architectural development and organizational meanings and uses of space in a Finnish university.

The paper draws from actor‐network theory and Lefebvre's spatial‐social approach to shed light on the organizational assumptions of the various building phases and how current employees use and make sense of the architectural space in the case organization. The methods used include participant observation, interviews of employees and architects, and interpretation of planning documents, architectural statements and administrative representations of the complex.

It took over 30 years to build the campus. The original plans for the university buildings were substantially revised as architectural and organizational paradigms changed over time. However, regardless of the more recently built state‐of‐the‐art facilities, the early architectural design ideas have persisted as material‐social forces that participate in the ongoing production and reproduction of organizational space.

Despite of the recent surge of writings on organizational space and architecture, there are relatively few empirical studies done on the topic. In particular, analyses investigating the travel of design ideas from architectural planning to actual physical constructions and further to the everyday organizing practices of employees have so far been rare in organizational literature. This paper partially fills this gap.

The authors explore the nature of commitment, job satisfaction and job characteristics, and the nature of the interrelationships among these variables concerning expatriate employees in Saudi Arabia. An examination of a sample of 504 expatriate employees reveals that these employees are, by and large, indifferent with respect to their perceptions of commitment, job satisfaction, and job characteristics. In addition, the results provide strong support for (1) the influence of job satisfaction on commitment, (2) the influence of job variety on commitment, and (3) the influence of job autonomy, identity, and feedback on job satisfaction.

The aim of this special issue is to bring together contributions from diverse perspectives interested in challenging the quantitative/qualitative divide within organisation and management research.

The papers in this special issue explore at a methodological or paradigmatic level (rather than at the level of particular research methods) the possible ways in which different research methodologies converge, diverge and overlap. Rather that asking questions about the validity and intrinsic value of certain methodologies, we are encouraged to shift gear towards assessing how useful these methodologies are in terms of carrying us from the world of practice to theory and vice‐versa. If methodologies help us to progress our thinking and our practices, they are “true” in a pragmatist sense. If they stall our thinking and do not influence in any way our practices, then they are probably untrue.

It is hoped that the papers presented in this special issue help us process our ideas and experiences in a progressive way, towards finding better, more robust ways of approaching our research practices.

Of course, it is for the reader to decide if this project has made an impact on their own thinking and practical endeavour but we remain convinced that the dichotomy between quantitative and qualitative methodologies is not productive and must be abandoned in favour of a heterodox and more pragmatic approach to methodology.