New spatial and temporal articulations of boundary-work. The case of knowledge workers

Journal title SOCIOLOGIA DEL LAVORO
Author/s Anna Carreri
Publishing Year 2017 Issue 2017/146
Language Italian Pages 16 P. 172-187 File size 115 KB
DOI 10.3280/SL2017-146011
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

In the sociological literature, several studies have shown that the economic and organizational changes, including the growth of the service sector and the diffusion of new technologies, have altered the productive and reproductive processes as well as their spatial and temporal dimensions typical of Fordism. In order to shed light on how knowledge workers position themselves with respect to the management of the new spatial and temporal dimensions that (re)productive practices today imply, the article adopts specific analytical tools coming from the interdisciplinary area of boundary-studies, within a perspective focused on the subjective experiences and qualitative dimensions of time. With this approach, a discourse analysis was conducted on 45 qualitative interviews addressed to knowledge workers with caring responsibilities. The results show that the permeability and flexibility of new (re)productive practices, often presented as new opportunities for knowledge workers, especially if they are female, are experienced differently by men and women: they represent for the first ones a new control source, while for the latter ones they constitute a fictitious if not constricting process.

Nella letteratura sociologica diversi studi hanno mostrato come le trasformazioni nei modelli organizzativi del lavoro e i mutamenti economico-produttivi, fra i quali la crescita del settore dei servizi e la diffusione delle nuove tecnologie, abbiano alterato la scansione dei tempi e degli spazi (ri)produttivi di stampo fordista. Al fine di far luce su come si posizionano i knowledge workers rispetto alla gestione delle nuove articolazioni spazio-temporali che le pratiche (ri)produttive oggi implicano, l'articolo adotta specifici strumenti analitici provenienti dall'area interdisciplinare dei boundary studies, all'interno di una prospettiva interessata alla dimensione soggettiva dei vissuti e focalizzata sulle dimensioni qualitative del tempo. Con questo approccio è stata condotta un'analisi del discorso di 45 interviste qualitative rivolte a lavoratori/trici della conoscenza con responsabilità di cura. I risultati dell'analisi mostrano come la permeabilità e la flessibilità delle pratiche (ri)produttive, spesso presentate come delle nuove opportunità offerte ai lavoratori e, soprattutto, alle lavoratrici della conoscenza, siano vissute differentemente da uomini e donne, rappresentando per gli uni un nuovo spazio di comando, e costituendo invece per le altre un processo del tutto fittizio se non costrittivo.

Keywords: Boundary-work, knowledge work, work-family interface, time

  1. Adam B. (1990). Time and Social Theory. London: Polity Press.
  2. Allen T., Cho E., Meier T. (2014). Work family boundary dynamics. Annual Review Orga-nizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, n. 1: 99-121.
  3. Ammons S.K. (2012). Work-Family Boundary Strategies: Stability and Alignment Between Preferred and Enacted Boundaries. Journal of Vocational Behavior, n. 82(1): 49-58.
  4. Armano E. (2010). Precarietà e innovazione nel postfordismo. Una ricerca qualitativa sui lavoratori della conoscenza a Torino. Bologna: Odoya.
  5. Ashforth B., Kreiner G., Fugate M. (2000). All in a Day’s Work: Boundaries and Micro Role Transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25(3): 472-491.
  6. Berton F., Richiardi M., Sacchi S. (2009). Flex-insecurity. Perché in Italia la flessibilità diventa precarietà. Bologna: il Mulino.
  7. Blumer H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory. American sociological review, 19(1): 3-10. DOI: 10.2307/2088165
  8. Brose H.G. (2004). An Introduction Towards a Culture of Simultaneity. Time and Society, n. 13(1): 5-26. DOI: 10.1177/0961463X04040740
  9. Bulger C.A., Mathews R.A., Hoffman M.E. (2007). Work and Personal Life Boundary Management: Boundary Strength, Work/Personal Life Balance, And The Segmentation-Integration Continuum. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, n. 12: 365-375. DOI: 10.1037/1076-8998.12.4.365
  10. Butera F., Bagnara S., Cesaria R., Di Guardo S. (2008). Knowledge Working. Lavoro, lavoratori, società della conoscenza. Milano: Mondadori.
  11. Cardano M. (2011). La ricerca qualitativa. Bologna: il Mulino.
  12. Carreri A. (2014). Fatherhood and Precarious Work: A Supporting Relation Between Systems of Meanings. AG:About Gender, 3(6): 87-115.
  13. Carreri A. (2015). Italian Parents in Precarious Work: How Normative Beliefs Affect Social Understandings of the Work-Family Boundary. Research in the Sociology of Work, 26: 1-33.
  14. Chesley N., Moen P., Shore R.P. (2003). The new technology climate. In: Moen P., a cura di, It’s about time: Couples and careers. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press: 220-241.
  15. Clark S.C. (2000). Work/Family Border Theory. A New Theory of Work/Family Balance. Human Relations, n. 53 (6): 747-770. DOI: 10.1177/0018726700536001
  16. Cunliffe A. (2003). Reflexive inquiry in organizational research: Questions and possibilities. Human Relations, n. 56: 983-1003. DOI: 10.1177/00187267030568004
  17. Daly K.J. (1996). Families and Time: Keeping Pace in a Hurried Culture. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  18. Davies B., Harré R. (1990). Positioning: The Discursive Construction of Selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1): 43-63.
  19. Gherardi S., Poggio B. (2003). Donna per fortuna, uomo per destino. Il lavoro raccontato da lei e da lui. Milano: ETAS.
  20. Gieryn T.F. (1983). Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6): 781-795.
  21. Gill R., Pratt A.C. (2008). In the social factory? Immaterial labour, precariousness and cultural work. Theory, Culture & Society, n. 25(7-8): 1-30. DOI: 10.1177/0263276408097794
  22. Glaser B.G., Strauss A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.
  23. Karasek R.A. (1979). Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude and Mental Strain: Implications for Job Redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, n. 24(2): 285-311. DOI: 10.2307/2392498
  24. Kossek E.E. (2016). Managing work-life boundaries in the digital age. Organizational Dynamics, n. 45: 258-270.
  25. Kossek E.E., Lautsch B.A. (2008). CEO of Me: Creating a Life That Works in the Flexible Job Age. NJ: Pearson.
  26. Kossek E.E., Lautsch B.A. (2012). Work-Family Boundary Management Styles in Organizations: A Cross-Level Model. Organizational Psychology Review, n. 2(2): 152-171. DOI: 10.1177/2041386611436264
  27. Kossek E.E., Ruderman M.N., Braddy P.W., Hannum K.M. (2012). Work-Nonwork Boundary Management Profiles: A Person-Centered Approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, n. 81(1): 112-128.
  28. Kreiner G.E., Hollensbe E.C., Sheep M.L. (2009). Balancing borders and bridges: Negotiating the work-home interface via boundary work tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 704-730. DOI: 10.5465/AMJ.2009.43669916
  29. Lamont M., Molnàr V. (2002). The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, n. 28: 167-195.
  30. Leccardi C. (2009). Sociologie del tempo. Bari-Roma: Laterza.
  31. Moen P., Kelly E.L., Fan W., Lee S., Almeida D., Kossek E.E., Buxton O.M. (2016). Does a Flexibility/Support Organizational Initiative Improve High-Tech Employees’ Well-Being? Evidence from the Work, Family, and Health Network. American Sociological Review, n. 81(1): 134-164. DOI: 10.1177/0003122415622391
  32. Morini C. (2012). La cognizione dell’impermanenza. Il lavoro a tempo indeterminato paradigma della precarietà contemporanea. Quaderni di San Precario, 3: 175-196.
  33. Murgia A., Maestripieri L., Armano E. (2016). Editorial: The Precariousness of Knowledge Workers: Hybridisation, Self-Employment and Subjectification. Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation, n. 10(2): 1-8.
  34. Murgia A., Poggio B. (2012). La trappola della passione. Esperienze di precarietà dei giovani highly skilled in Italia, Spagna e Regno Unito. In: Cordella G., Masi S.E., a cura di, Condizione giovanile e nuovi rischi sociali. Quali politiche? Roma: Carocci: 82-99.
  35. Nippert-Eng C. (1996). Home and Work: Negotiating Boundaries Through Everyday Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  36. Papadopoulos D., Stephenson N., Tsianos V. (2008). Escape Routes: Control and Subversion in the 21st Century. London: Pluto Press.
  37. Pérez-Zapata O., Serrano Pascual A., Álvarez-Hernández G., Castaño Collado C. (2016). Knowledge work intensification and self-management: the autonomy paradox. Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation, n. 10(2): 27-49.
  38. Potter J., Wetherell M. (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology. London: Sage.
  39. Sundaramurthy C., Kreiner G. (2008). Governing by Managing Identity Boundaries: The Case of Family Businesses. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, n. 32(3): 415-436.
  40. Thrift N. (2005). Knowing Capitalism. Theory, Culture & Society, London: Sage.
  41. Turrini M., Chicchi F. (2013). Precarious subjectivities are not for sale: the loss of the measurability of labour for performing arts workers. Global Discourse, n. 3: 507-521. DOI: 10.1080/23269995.2014.885167
  42. West C., Zimmerman D. (1987). Doing Gender. Gender and Society, n. 1(2): 125-151.

Anna Carreri, Nuove articolazioni spazio-temporali del boundary-work. Il caso dei lavoratori e delle lavoratrici della conoscenza in "SOCIOLOGIA DEL LAVORO " 146/2017, pp 172-187, DOI: 10.3280/SL2017-146011