Exploring organizational architecture and space: a case for heterodox research

Forthcoming in International Journal of Organizational Analysis

Tuomo Peltonen Department of Industrial Management, Tampere University of Technology, Finland P.O. Box 541, 33101 Tampere, FINLAND email: tuomo.peltonen@tut.fi

Abstract Purpose 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 multiparadigm and mixed methods research. Design/methodology/approach The paper presents a methodological re-reading of a recent research process that analyzed the spatial and architectural dynamics in a Finnish university organization. Findings While the analysis of architectural meanings are often grounded in researcher-participants autoethnographic 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. Originality/value 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. Keywords: Architecture, Space, Organizations, Multiparadigm research, Methodology

Paper type: Research paper

Introduction

The organizational study of space and architecture has advanced rapidly during the past few years. In addition to numerous individual contributions (e.g. Clegg and Kornberger, 2006; Hernes, 2004; Dale & Burrell, 2008; Taylor and Spicer, 2007), two recent special issues (Culture and Organization, 2011 and Journal of Organizational Change Management, 2011) have been devoted to the topic. Taking its inspiration from fields such as aesthetics (Linstead & Hpfl, 2000), symbolism (Gagliardi, 1990; Berg & Kreiner, 1990) and poststructuralism (Foucault, 1979; Fallan, 2008), research into organizational space has opened new avenues to conceptualize organizations as embedded in and performed through built environments and architectural settings. Previous studies have examined the design and consumption of organizational spaces in diverse situations and contexts, including planned change (van Marrewijk, 2009; Dale, 2005), introduction of innovative work facilities (Warren, 2008; Halford, 2004), and spatial articulations of the fashionable (Taylor and Spicer, 2007; Kornberger and Clegg, 2004) as well as more unconventional organizational forms (Watkins, 2005; Knigma, 2008; Yanow 1995).

As a study of how material objects and artifacts take part in the creation of social forms in interaction with human action and symbolization (Warren, 2008), spatial research is inclined to orient itself towards multiple methods. Studying architecture using theories such as Lefbvres (1991) scheme on the production of space or variants of actor-network theory (Gieryn, 2002; Fallan, 2008) calls for the use of multiple perspectives to make sense of the physical, practical and cultural dimensions of space. Formation of organizational space is understood in these as a process of interaction between the human and non-human elements in the emerging socio-spatial systems. For example the use of Lefbvres (1991) framework of three dimensions of space (conceived, planned, lived) (cf. Taylor and Spicer, 2007; Watkins, 2005; Knigma, 2008) could be argued to lead quite naturally to multiple sources and interpretations of empirical data. The idea according to which the three dimensions of space work together to build a distinct socio-spatial environment, as Lefbvre (1991) suggests in his original thesis, also points to the direction of understanding methodical multiplicity underpinning most spatial research as a strategy aiming at a unified understanding of the spatial phenomenon. For example Knigma (2008) exemplifies this in his study of Dutch casinos that employed a three-dimensional perspective on space to demonstrate how a gambling locale was constructed and enacted as a place for normalized

entertainment. In other words, multiple methods and social theory paradigms serve to achieve a holistic understanding of the meaning of space in organizational structuring through the interplay of different styles of investigation.

However, despite the growing body of theoretical and empirical contributions, the field seldom engages with rigorous methodological self-reflection. The research process is hardly ever described in detail, despite the centrality of reporting the actual interpretative operations to the credibility of qualitative research (Silverman, 2006). Dale (2005, p. 664), for example, recounts how she observed the changing material conditions unfolding over a period of eight months of informal contact with this company in a number of guises. In a recent empirical contribution, van Marrewijk (2009, p. 295), in turn, describes his involvement as an employee, researcher and consultant in the case organization, but does not extend the methodological description beyond noting that data from the previous study has been transcribed and now used again to analyze spatial settings, along with desk research on the buildings. Methodological minimalism or crypticism seems to be the norm. A rare exception can be found from Warrens (2008) work that focused on aesthetic meanings of office dcor within a department of a multinational company. Warren explicates and discusses her experiences of doing field work, especially from the perspective of using different methods at different stages of the research process. She, like the students of architectural space, was confronted with the challenge of how to investigate the meaning of basically ineffable organizational artifacts and material designs using conventional qualitative methods that rely on the use of language (cf. Yanow, 1995). Warrens solution was to triangulate ethnographic insights with interviews and respondent-led photography to arrive at a more sophisticated understanding of the aesthetic processes in the case unit. Her study started with ethnographic familiarizing with the material environment of the organization, followed by methods that allowed the employees to provide their own experiences of the office architecture. Personal engagement provided initial ideas about the relationship of human actors to the material objects, further deepened with the help of biographical interviews and photographs taken by the employees. The argument is that limiting the study of organizational spaces to autoethnographic impressions leads to impoverish understandings of the meaning of architecture, and that, instead, other parallel methods should be used to enable a more comprehensive description of how aesthetic and spatial experiences are formed in organizational life (Warren, 2008; 564; Halford, 2004). The use of multiple perspectives and methods

within a single study may provide the needed methodological resource for spatial studies, and it is to these themes we turn to next.

Multiparadigm and mixed methods research in organizational analysis

Ever since the publication of Sociological Paradigms and Organizational analysis by Gibson Burrell and Gareth Morgan (1979), the field of organization studies has tried to come into terms with the consequences of multiple social science approaches to the practice of organizational analysis. While the early debate was predominantly concerned with the incommensurability thesis implicit in Burrells and Morgans original presentation, the more recent work has acknowledged that some form of multiparadigm dialogue is possible within the plurality of approaches (Lewis and Grimes, 1999). Even the notorious attack on emerging paradigmatic diversity by Pfeffer (1993) was incapable of reversing the creation and institutionalization of new schools of thought within organizational analysis. Rather, his piece, and the conversation that followed (Van Maanen, 1995a, 1995b; Pfeffer, 1995), seems to have convinced the field about the apparent lack of solid arguments that could be animated to oppose and halt the diversification of research efforts into new conceptual and methodological territories.

One implication of this acknowledgment is the development of ideas about strategies employing multiple paradigmatic approaches within single studies (Gioia and Pitre, 1990; Morgan, 2006; Lewis and Kelemen, 2002; Hassard and Kelemen, 2002; Schultz and Hatch, 1996). The so-called multi-paradigm debate has produced a wealth of exemplars and ideas of how different paradigms work in connection to each other in the course of the research process. In a review, Lewis and Grimes (1999) argue that most multi-paradigm research has tended to follow either a parallel or a sequential strategy in their actual design. Parallel studies focus on the rivalry of the paradigms by depicting the organizational voices, images and interests magnified by opposing lens (Lewis and Grimes, 1999, p. 675). The purpose of this kind of design is to produce many simultaneous shots of the phenomenon by using a number of paradigmatic recorders or cameras. Hassards (1991) study of a case organization using four different methods and data sets congruent with the four paradigms of Burrell and Morgan (1979) is an example of a parallel study. In sequential studies, in turn, different paradigms are employed in varied stages of the research process. This can be accomplished for example so that more realist or structural approaches are used to generate an overview of the phenomenon in an organizational context, followed by some

form of ethnographic or interpretative analysis that focuses on subjective meanings and situated practices of actors, or, alternatively, so that qualitative sensitizing to the topic is followed by the use of survey instruments. A third available strategy is paradigm interplay, introduced by Schultz and Hatch (1996). This position allows different approaches to interact more openly with each other in a reciprocal fashion. The purpose is to allow the researcher to move back and forth so that differences and similarities between different perspectives to produce novel, nuanced description of the phenomenon.

Alongside the theoretical multiparadigm discussion, a related debate has emerged around so called mixed methods research in social and organizational studies (Tashakkoriand and Teddlie, 2010; Currall and Towler, 2003; Hurmerinta-Peltomki and Nummela, 2006). Here the emphasis is primarily on the relations between qualitative and quantitative research, although as Bryman (2009, p. 516) suggests, a mixed methods approach can also refer to studies where multiple methods are used within a quantitative or a qualitative approach. According to Bryman and Bell (2011, p. 632), the main options in choosing a multi-methods strategy concern priority and sequence in using different approaches. Qualitative or quantitative stance can dominate in a study, or both can be used equally to inform research design (Johnson, et al, 2007). Additionally, various approaches can be used in different temporal sequences, depending on the theoretical ambitions and possible practical limitations of the study at hand. In triangulation (Jick, 1979), an early form of multiple methods research, findings from an analysis using one method are validated using several other approaches. Triangulation encourages a researcher to include many different forms of analysis to the design of a single study in order to confirm the validity of insights produced by the initial analysis (Webb, et al. 1966). More broadly understood, mixed methods research means using different methods in a single study, depending on the research questions and practical limitations. Overall, the rise of mixed methods research in business and management studies is connected to the emerging shift away from the paradigmatic considerations of differences of approaches in terms of epistemology and ontology, towards an increasingly pragmatic or pragmatist interpretation of the relations between different social science approaches and traditions within the field (Bryman and Bell, 2011; Morgan, 2007).

Multiparadigm or mixed methods strategies have not been explicitly discussed in the context of spatial research problematics. The exemplary empirical analyses (Warren, 2008; Yanow, 1995; Halford, 2004) as well as the emerging methodological reflections (e.g. van Marrewijk and Yanow, 2009; 7) suggest

that the prime methodological vehicle in spatial research is some form of autoethnographic sensitizing to the architectural features of the research site, complemented in most cases with interviews, photography, document analysis or other predominantly qualitative methods. Yet the questions around the primacy, sequence and mutual relations of various methods in the course of the research process the key concern in multipardigm and multimethod discussions - have not so far been taken up in architectural study. The purpose of this article is to provide a description of the practical unfolding of a project on organizational spaces using the experiences from a recent study on Finnish university architecture (Peltonen, 2011). As such, the intention is not to present formal methodological tools that would act as textbook guides for spatial research (cf. Warren, 2008). Instead, I hope that reviewing the problems and solutions of one particular field work project from a multimethod perspective might be of help to future researchers as they cope with similar empirical challenges in their architectural analyses.

A Finnish study of university architecture and space

The study explored the architectural meanings at the University of Oulu in northern Finland. The project started subtly in the form of personal participant observation while I was working in the Faculty of Economics in the university. I joined the place as an outsider and was immediately stunned by the complexity and massiveness of the campus (see Plate 1.). The Linnanmaa campus is located outside of the city of Oulu, making up an autonomous urban space with departments, lecture halls, cafes, administrative offices and even some student flats grouped under one roof. Getting to grips with the University meant in practice learning how to orient oneself in the numerous corridors extending from the central concourse to the numerous departmental wings. This personal immersion into the architectural space and its relations to the shaping of organizational identity, culture and structure was integral to the evolving understanding of the local spatial dynamics.

Plate 1. Linnanmaa campus from air, with the old part in the middle.(c) Suomen Ilmakuva Oy.

The study became more systematic with the implementation of a series of user tours, which were in practice walking tours along some of the conventional routes within the university. In these, observations related to architecture, layout, furniture and dcor were documented using a mobile phone camera. The intention of these tours was to make the initial observations more explicit by recording selected spatial features with the help of the focused view of the camera (Pink, 2006). The purpose was to guide my attention to the architectural designs and solutions that I felt were affecting my behaviors and imaginations as an organizational user of the campus premises. Methodologically, reflecting on the photos enabled me to take some distance from my taken-for-granted practices and perceptions, and to

analyze the way I was apprehending the material-spatial surroundings of my everyday activities at work. Selected documents were also included in the early stages of analysis. These consisted of maps and floor plans used by the university, available on the Internet pages of the organization (see Figure 1.), as well as several articles and related texts published in various media such as the local newspaper and the internal newsletter of the university Another form of secondary source was a recent study of the early planning of the campus from the perspective of architectural ideas and aesthetic guidelines (Vuorinen, 2005). These materials highlighted the ways in which the campus was represented in plans and administrative documents.

Figure 1. The official map of the campus; the central passage is marked with the bold line.

The first phase of the analysis focused on the connections between the spatial and architectural solutions and the social structures within the case organization. As the analysis proceeded to the second

phase, new methods were employed to broaden the interpretations made in the first part. At this point, reliance on participant observation and the accompanied user tours was found somewhat limited. There was a need to enrich and contextualize the researcher-centered insights with material on the spatial actions and symbolic framings of the employees and other groups to achieve a more balanced view on the experiences and uses of campus as an organizational space. Simultaneously, the implicit descriptions of the design principles affecting visible architectural features were scrutinized into a more systematic analysis through consulting documents that specify the intentions of architects and other professionals involved in the planning of the campus complex. Four in-depth interviews with individuals occupying different positions in the occupational and organizational structures of the university were made to test the validity of the initial findings that had emerged from participant observation and user tours. Interviews confirmed aspects of the spatial structures that were found earlier to be informing and reproducing social structures (boundaries, hierarchies, division of labor), while they also opened new themes to consider, especially with regards to the tensions between the everyday uses and meanings of architecture and the formal representations and norms of workplace spaces in the university. Interviewees talked about creative uses of space that departed from the representations and expectations of the administrative guides and maps. At the same time, the central role of the so called old part and its spatial structures (the central concourse) and distinctive dcor (1970s outlook with orange-green colors) in the formation of the social meanings among the users was further highlighted through the interview accounts. In another dimension, the external analysis of the architectural solutions and planning principles was deepened with the help of archival data. University of Oulu was the first large-scale campus in Finland built according to a rationalist planning paradigm where the spatial structures were integrally linked to the ideas about administrative and disciplinary structures as well as forms of organizational activities that were to take place within the buildings (Vuorinen, 2005). Oulu was an exemplary case of new provincial state universities that were purposefully planned as total environments where architectural, academic and social structures were thought to mutually support each other in the making of a modern multi-disciplinary university. This meant also that the planning of the campus was opulently documented in the architectural reports and articles of the time. In the second stage, then, a number of documents about the campus building layouts, spatial plans and design ideas were obtained and analyzed. These exhibits provided ample evidence about the mindsets

and the assumptions of the architects and the other builders as the campus was constructed beginning from the early 1970s and continuing all the way till the 2000s. In particular, the analysis of the architectural documents paved the way toward a grounded understanding of the diversity of design paradigms that characterizes the general outlook of the campus as a spatial arena. Architectural and spatial principles have changed several times during the decades of planning and building. Ultimately, these findings were validated and sharpened in an interview where the two main architects of the complex narrated their version of the buildings from the professional experiences of being intimately engaged with the erection of the university campus for nearly 40 years. As a result, three materialsocial frames consisting of configurations of architectural theory, idea of space as an organizational context and the image of the assumed user or users characterizing different parts of the campus were articulated.

A multiparadigm reading of the research process

From the beginning, the research project employed multiple methods to be able to scrutinize various aspects of spatial dynamics. Participant observation was complemented with the user tours focussing on the aesthetic and symbolic meanings communicated in and though architectural features of the buildings as well as with selected documents describing the original planning ideas and contemporary representations of space. The initial research design already embraced the multiple aspects of space, corresponding to a variety of methods and qualitative analyses appropriate to each dimension. However, this early interplay was deepened in the second stage of the study. While the reliance on autoethnographic data emphasized the generalized experiences of the researcher as a user, the second round of analyses aimed to shift methodology towards materials illustrating other groups and voices within the processes of space formation. Each new method deepened the description of the various dimensions of space. The archival data on architectural plans enhanced the understanding of the design intentions of the planners of the campus, most notably the architects. Additional material from the administrative and promotional sources explicated the formal representations and mappings of space (Lefbvres planned space). Interviews with selected users were employed to enrich the tentative observations and insights from the user tours. They helped to clarify the ways in which different practices (conceived space) and symbolic significations (lived space) contributed to the emergence of a distinct form of spatial context.

Taken together, the new methods employed in the second phase connected to the first stage by providing a broadened view on the various dimensions of spatial dynamics. At this point, the interplay of different perspectives on space began to crystallize into a more explicit outcome. The various aspects of space formation seemed to feed into the emergence of the university as a multidisciplinary institution with a strong sense of togetherness or identity. The central passageway of the old part of the campus exemplified this version of the university organization. The passage was still affecting the constructions of social structures through its distinctive spatial form. Analysis of spatial practices and subjective images also confirmed to a certain extent the critical role of the central passage and the associated images about professional and academic plurality that was tempered by the shared passageway space. Some of the design ambitions however proved to be somewhat too grandiose from the perspective of everyday movements of the employees, as for example the reported use of shortcuts and the tendency to concentrate primarily on ones immediate office space indicated. The campus totality was narrowed down to more concrete spatial settings in users perceptions.

Yet in many accounts and reflections, the main layout of the whole complex was assumed as the background structure that described the architectural idea of the dominant organizational form shaping the social structures of the university. Administrative representations and mappings also seemed to tap into the idea of the central passageway performing the role of the backbone of the campus that connects the various departments and their individuals to each other in their daily walks. The passageway was presented in the materials as the meeting point where different groups and individuals could get together in a milieu supportive of spontaneous interaction. Unity in diversity characterizes relatively well this spatial-social form to which the various dimensions of space were feeding in their own ways. University was enacting and performing its original communitarian ideals introduced in the 1960s (Vuorinen, 2005) through the production of spatial forms emerging from the interplay of architectural, administrative, social and symbolic processes.

Viewed from the multiparadigm framework, the approach employed several paradigmatic stances resembling transition zones (Gioia & Pitre, 1990), areas enabling movement between different methods. Approaching architecture from the actors meaning-making perspective signaled commitment to the interpretative paradigm (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Prasad, 2005; Hatch & Yanow, 2003)

highlighting the situated significations and symbolic representations of space. Focusing on the movements and practices of occupying the space, in turn, highlighted the primacy of user activities embedded into identifiable routines, similar to the recent apprehensions of social practices as building blocks of social order (e.g. Schatzki, 2001, 2006; Tuomela, 2002). The practice perspective shares many of the assumptions of the interpretative paradigm, such as the tendency to favor qualitative field work methods (Miettinen et al., 2009), but focuses more on the doings of organizational actors within a broadly realist philosophy of science (Sayer, 2000). These two approaches belong to the accepted approaches within organizational sociology, whereas the third building block in the multi-paradigm interplay, architectural design, is relatively less known in the conventional debates of organizational analysis. Studying the plans and representations of space moves the focus towards the questions concerning the design of buildings and physical settings. Typically, organizational design has belonged to the realm of functionalist organization theory, aiming to formulate the most effective structural forms that are implemented using various managerial techniques and top-down change programs (Hatch, 1997). Scholars operating in non-functionalist paradigms tend to avoid blending managerialist design thinking with critical and intepretative approaches, concentrating instead on processes and contradictions of organizing. Similarly, in spatial research architectural plans and other physical and aesthetic designs are often viewed as managerialist forms of control (Dale and Burrell, 2003; Warren, 2008). However, as Kornberger and Clegg (2004) remind, architectural plans can also support community building and more spontaneous movements within organizational spaces (cf. Cairns, 2002). Empirical analysis of architectural ideas is needed to evaluate its actual role in the spatial structuring of organizational identities and behaviors. In the Finnish study, examining architectural plans and accounts proved necessary for explicating the design ideas and intentions inscribed into the existing buildings. The campus is a bricolage of different architectural fashions. Analysis of original architectural articles and reports as well as secondary literature examining the theories and ideologies affecting the designs revealed distinct configurations of architectural style, user profile and assumptions about the organizational context. This multiplicity was understood in the study as the first layer of design ideas and spatial representations that has projected a distinct structural and ideological image to the material forms as they are used and lived. On the other hand, this multiplicity was re-represented in the various attempts of the university administration to provide an overarching mapping of the complex as a coherent spatial totality. There was some

controversy between these two aspects, since although from an architectural point of view, the campus was exceptional because it featured a variety of design principles and architectural styles, from the perspective of administrative unity, the multiplicity of designs posed a problem for those wishing to represent the campus complex as a physical manifestation of the university as a single unified actor. Analyzing merely the representations and schemes accessible from the administrative documents and maps would have led to a relatively one-sided understanding of the design intentions informing the architectural solutions and meanings. Leaving original architectural plans out of the study would also have impoverished the analysis of the interaction between the different aspects of spatial dynamics, especially in terms of the examination of the relationships between user practices and interpretations, and the background architectural and design ideas of the campus. The incorporation of design ideas complemented the paradigmatic triad needed to accomplish a thicker description of the spatial dynamics in the case organization.

Concluding comments

What I have argued in this paper is that in the research process operations, spatial researchers typically start with some type of researcher-driven ethnographic work that focuses on the observational insights emanating from the researcher immersing himself or herself into an architectural setting (Warren, 2008). While this tends to be followed in some cases by thematic interviews that aim to clarify the interpretations of the employees, the majority of the previous studies into architecture and organizations have so far ignored the potential to expand the methodical repertoire in the direction of design ideas and architectural theories and solutions influencing the production and consumption of material structures and shapes. Design is assumed to be connected to managerialist intervention and control and as such is left empirically unexamined. However, as the Finnish case suggests, architectural design can also be empowering or communal (cf. Kornberger and Clegg, 2004). University architecture in the 1960s and 1970s was informed by the wider ideas about the importance of collective interactional spaces and harmonious co-existence of the diverse parts of an organization (Vuorinen, 2005). Whenever available, some form of inquiry into architectural plans and accounts should be included into spatial studies.

As suggested by multi-paradigm research, the use of multiple theoretical lenses to study spatiality takes often place sequentially, one approach at a time (Lewis and Grimes, 1999). At the same time, this process is cumulative in a sense that various methodical angles on spatial dynamics start gradually to converse with each other as the study progresses, akin to the interplay strategy (Schultz and Hatch, 1996) where insights from different paradigms lead to richer understanding of the phenomenon. The initial ethnographic insight into a physical organizational setting is followed by analyses into the spatial practices and perceptions of employees as well as into the representations and plans of the architects and administrative officials. On the other hand, using the vocabulary of the mixed methods research, one can conclude that this kind of triangulation of separate methods and qualitative data helps in strengthening the validity of empirical findings. In the Finnish case, similar to Warrens (2008) study, the early reflections of the researcherethnographer were substantially altered after data from other sources and actors started to flow into the project. For example, the idea that the locations of different departments in relation to the main building reflect implicit power hierarchies between different disciplines (closeness to the main building symbolizing importance) proved not to be as significant to the interviewed individuals as the initial researcher experiences suggested. Nevertheless, although mixed methods and multiparadigm concepts heighten our awareness of the theoretical and methodological meanings of the various choices and moves made in the course of empirical research processes, the study of spatiality and architecture presents unique challenges to the contemplations of heterodoxy in organizational analysis. It could be described in metatheoretical terms as entailing a hybrid ontology where at times physical structures are viewed as active participants in organizational structuring, almost similar to human agents (Yanow, 1995; Gieryn, 2002), whereas at other times they are conceptualized as material objects that derive their meaning from social interactions and subjective significations. Human actors, in turn, appear in spatial research as relatively passive bodies that are scattered around the corridors, offices and pathways shaped by the architectural choices concretized into buildings, but are also conceived of as social actors whose interpretative work is crucial for the emergence of space as an organizationally meaningful phenomenon (Dale, 2005). Theoretical resources such as structuration theory (Giddens, 1984) or actor-network theory (Latour, 2005; Callon & Law, 1995) seem apt to valorize the kind of approach needed to shed light on the complexities and paradoxes inherent in spatial processes and their study. Especially the methodical

designs of actor-network studies (e.g. Latour, 1988; Latour, 1991; Callon, 1986) come relatively close to the types of challenges the study of architecture in organizational settings faces (cf. Fallan, 2008; Gieryn, 2002). Rich in ethnographic detail and temporal unfolding, but also theoretically rigorous on the material conditions of the emerging heterogeneous collectives, actor-network theory has demonstrated in its own way the benefits of employing multiple methods within a case setting. Yet within its internal discussions, actor-network theory has largely refrained from framing its empirical operations in a conventional methodological language (e.g. Law, 2004). Analyzing organizations as spatial products opens up new ways of understanding the reality of organizing but at the same time considerable further work is required to bring about the implicit empirical practices developing in the area into the domain of organizational analysis methodology and theory, thus making the evolving fieldwork maneuvers more readily apprehensible to other researchers wishing to explore the terrain of architecture and space.

References: Berg, P.O. and Kreiner, K. (1990), Corporate architecture: turning physical settings into symbolic resources, in Gagliardi, P. (Ed.), Symbols and artifacts: views of the corporate landscape, Aldine de Gruyter, New York NY, pp. 41-67. Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2011) Business research methods, 3rd edition, London: Sage. Bryman, A. (2009), Mixed methods research in organizational research, in Buchanan, D. and Bryman, A. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of organizational research methods, Sage, London, pp. 516-531. Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis, Heinemann, London. Burrell, G. and Dale, K. (2003) Building better worlds? Architecture and critical management studies, in: Alvesson, M. & Willmott, H. (eds.), Studying management critically, Sage, London, pp. 177196 Cairns, G. (2002) Aesthetics, Morality and Power: Design as Espoused Freedom and Implicit Control, Human Relations, Vol. 55. No. 7, pp. 799-820,

Callon, M. (1986) Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of Saint Brieuc Bay, in Law, J. (Ed.), Power, Action and Belief: a new Sociology of Knowledge?, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, pp. 196-233. Callon, M. and Law, J. (1995). "Agency and the Hybrid Collectif", South Atlantic Quarterly, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 481-507. Clegg, S and Kornberger, M. (eds.) (2006), Space, organizations and management theory, Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenhagen. Currall, S. and Towler, A. (2003), Research methods in management and organizational research: toward integration of quantitative and qualitative techniques, in Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C (eds.) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, Sage, London, pp. 513-526. Dale, K. (2005) Building a social materiality, Organization, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 649-78. Dale, K. and Burrell, G. (2008), Spaces of organization and the organization of space, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Elsbach, K. and Pratt, M. (2007), The physical environment in organizations, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 1, 181-224. Fallan, K. (2008), Architecture in action: traveling with actor-network theory in the land of architectural research, Architectural Theory Review, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 80 96. Foucault, M. (1979), Discipline and punish, Penguin Books, London. Gagliardi, P. (Ed.), Symbols and artifacts: views of the corporate landscape, Aldine de Gruyter, New York NY. Giddens, A. (1984), The constitution of society: an outline of the theory of structuration, Polity Press, Cambridge. Gieryn, T. (2002), What buildings do, Theory and Society, Vol. No. 1, pp. 35-74. Gioia, D. and Pitre, E. (1990), Multiparadigm Perspectives on Theory Building, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 584-602 Halford, S. (2004) Towards a sociology of organizational space, Sociological Research Online, Vol. 9, No. 1, available at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/9/1/halford.html (accessed 10 December 2010) Hassard, J. and Kelemen, M. (2002), "Production and Consumption in Organizational Knowledge: The Case of the `Paradigms Debate'.", Organization, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp: 331-355.

Hassard, J. (1991) Multiple Paradigms and Organizational Analysis: A Case Study, Organization Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 275-299. Hatch, M.J. and Yanow, D. (2003) Organization theory as an interpretative science, in Tsoukas, H. and Knudsen, C. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organization theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.63-87. Hatch, M.J. (1997), Organization theory: modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hernes, T. (2004), The spatial construction of organization, John Benjamins, Amsterdam Hillier, B. (1996), Space is the machine: a configurational theory of architecture, Space Syntax, London. Hurmerinta-Peltomki, L. and Nummela, N. (2006), Mixed methods in international business research: a value-added perspective, Management International Review, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 439-59. Johnson, R.B, Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Turner,L.A. (2007) Toward a definition of mixed methods research, Journal of mixed methods research, Vol. 1 Nor. 2, pp.112-33. Knigma, S. (2008), Dutch casino space or the spatial organization of entertainment, Culture and Organization, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 31-48. Kornberger, M. and Clegg, S. (2004), Bringing space back in: organizing the generative building, Organization Studies, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 1095-1114. Latour, B. (2005), Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Latour, B. (1991), Technology is Society Made Durable, in Law, J. (Ed.), A Sociology of Monsters? Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, Routledge, London, pp. 103-131. Latour, B. (Jim Johnson) (1988), Mixing humans and nonhumans together: The sociology of a doorcloser, Social Problems, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 298-310. Law, J. (2004) After method: mess in social science research. Routledge, Milton Park. Lefebvre, H. (1991), The Production of Space, Blackwell, Oxford. Lewis, M. W. and Kelemen, M. L. (2002), Multiparadigm Inquiry: Exploring Organizational Pluralism and Paradox, Human Relations, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 251-275 Lewis M.L. and Grimes A. (1999) Metatriangulation: Building Theory from Multiple Paradigms, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Oct., 1999), pp. 672-690

Linstead, S. and Hpfl, H. (Eds.) (2000), The aesthetics of organization, Sage, London. Miettinen, R.,Samra-Fredricks, D. and Yanow, D. (2009) Re-Turn to Practice: An Introductory Essay, Organization Studies, Vol. 32 No 9, pp. 1309-1327. Morgan, D.K. (2007) Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained:Methodological Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 48-76 Morgan, G. (2006), Images of organization, Sage, London. Peltonen, T. (2011), Multiple architectures and the production of organizational space in a Finnish university, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 24, No. 6 (Forthcoming). Pink. S. (2006), Doing visual ethnography, Sage, London. Pfeffer, J. (1995), Mortality, Reproducibility, and the Persistence of Styles of Theory, Organization Science, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp. 681-686. Pfeffer, J. (1993), Barriers to the Advance of Organizational Science: Paradigm Development as a Dependent Variable, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 599-620. Prasad, P. (2005), Crafting qualitative research: working in the postpositivist traditions, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY. Sayer, A. (2000), Realism and social science, Sage, London. Schatzki, T. (2006) On organizations as they happen, Organization Studies, Vol. 27 No 12, pp. 18631873. Schatzki, T. (2001) Introduction: practice theory, in Schatzki, T., Knorr-Cetina, K. and von Savigny, E (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory. Routledge, New York. Schultz, M. and Hatch, M.J. (1996), Living with Multiple Paradigms: The Case of Paradigm Interplay in Organizational Culture Studies, The Academy of Management Review,Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 529-557. Silverman, D. (2006), Interpreting Qualitative Data, 3rd edition, Sage, London. Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (eds.) (2010) SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, Sage, London. Taylor, S. and Spicer, A. (2007), Time for space: a narrative review of research on organizational spaces, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp.325-46. Tuomela, R. (2002), The Philosophy of Social Practices A Collective Acceptance View, Cambridge. Van Maanen, J. (1995a), Style As Theory, Organization Science, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 133-143.

Van Maanen, J. (1995b), Fear and Loathing in Organization Studies, Organization Science, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp. 687-692. van Marrewijk, A.H. (2009), Corporate headquarters as physical embodiments of organisational change, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp.290 -306 van Marrewijk, A.H. and Yanow, D. (2010) Introduction: the spatial turn in organization studies, in van Marrewijk, A.H. and Yanow, D. (Eds.), Organizational Spaces. Rematerializing the Workaday World, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp.1-18 Vuorinen, J. (2005), Hyvinvointivaltion avoin muoto. Suomalaisen massakorkeakoulujrjestelmn arkkitehtoninen toteutus, esimerkkin Oulun yliopiston suunnittelu ja varhaiset rakennusvaiheet. (The open form of the welfare society. The architectural implementation of the Finnish mass university system: the planning of University of Oulu and its early construction phases)(in Finnish), PhD dissertation, Art History, University of Helsinki, Helsinki. Warren, S. (2008) Empirical challenges in organizational aesthetics research: towards a sensual methodology, Organization Studies, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 559-580. Watkins, C. (2005), Representations of space, spatial practices and spaces of representation: An application of Lefebvres spatial triad, Culture and Organization, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 209-20. Webb, E. J.; Campbell, D. T.; Schwartz, R. D. & Sechrest, L. (1966) Unobtrusive Measures: nonreactive research in the social sciences, Rand McNally, Chicago. Yanow, D. (1995), Built space as story: The policy stories that buildings tell, Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 407-422.