The Office as a Mixing Pot and Playground. An Ethnographic Study at a Creative Workplace

Cecilia Serrano-Martínez

doi:10.18778/1733-8077.12.3.07

Authors

Cecilia Serrano-Martínez University of Zaragoza, Spain

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.12.3.07

Keywords:

Creative Flows, Workspaces, Digital Era, Hybridization, Ethnography

Abstract

This paper aims to contribute to knowledge of the factors which inform the grouping of creative workers in particular places. It is based on a case study of Aragón, a region of Spain, and draws on a period of nine months of ethnographic work among a particular group of creative workers. The main hypothesis is that there are visual components in the work environment that are stimulating for workers and there is a number of creative flows in these workspaces. I have selected one office that is occupied by two different groups of creative professionals: web designers and programmers. The research concludes that there is evidence that a shared set of cultural values, ideas about work organization, and a hybrid work-life balance are significant to the location choices of creative workers. The research is relevant as a contribution to knowledge about how creative places work.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Cecilia Serrano-Martínez, University of Zaragoza, Spain

Cecilia Serrano-Martínez is a Sociologist and Social Worker. She is a consultant and works as a researcher at the University of Zaragoza (Spain). She was awarded with a Ph.D. scholarship by the Department of Science, Technology and University of the Government of Aragón, Spain to carry out her thesis research on creativity and occupations. She has participated in different international projects. Her main research interests are: creativity, art, occupations, the relationship between rural and urban areas, and the Western collective imaginary.

References

Amabile, Teresa M. 1990. “Within You, Without You: The Social Psychology of Creativity, and Beyond.” Pp. 61-91 in Theories of Creativity, edited by M. A. Runco and R. S. Albert. London: Sage.
Google Scholar

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar

Bruce, Margaret. 2009. “Unleashing the Creative Potential of Design in Business.” Pp. 37-45 in The Routledge Companion to Creativity, edited by T. Rickards, M. A. Runco, and S. Moger. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203888841.ch4

Castaneda, Carlos. 2009. Viaje a Ixtlan. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Google Scholar

Castoriadis, Cornelius. 1983. La institución imaginaria de la sociedad. Vol. 1 Marxismo y teoría revolucionaria. Barcelona: Tusquets.
Google Scholar

Castoriadis, Cornelius. 1997. Ontología de la creación. Santa Fé de Bogotá, Colombia: Ensayo y Error.
Google Scholar

Clark, Andy. 2003. Natural-Born Cyborgs. Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human Intelligence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Csikszentmihályi, Mihály. 1990. “The Domain of Creativity.” Pp. 190-212 in Theories of Creativity, edited by M. A. Runco and R. S. Albert. London: Sage.
Google Scholar

Csikszentmihályi, Mihály. 1998. Creatividad. El fluir y la psicología del descubrimiento y la invención. Barcelona: Paidós.
Google Scholar

De Bono, Edward. 1970. Lateral Thinking. Creativity Step by Step. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
Google Scholar

Epstein, Robert and Victoria Phan. 2012. “Which Competencies Are Most Important for Creative Expression?” Creativity Research Journal 24(4):278-282.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.726579

Florida, Richard. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community, and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books.
Google Scholar

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1999. Truth and Method. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company.
Google Scholar

Garfinkel, Harold. 2006. Estudios en etnometodología. Barcelona: Anthropos Editorial.
Google Scholar

Goldthorpe, John H. 2010. De la sociología. Números, narrativas e integración de la investigación y la teoría. Madrid: CIS.
Google Scholar

Granovetter, Mark S. 2000. “La fuerza de los vínculos débiles.” Política y Sociedad 33:41-56.
Google Scholar

Joas, Hans. 2005. The Creativity of Action. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Google Scholar

Knight, Frank. 1933. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. London: Percy Lund, Humphries.
Google Scholar

Koestler, Arthur. 1989. The Act of Creation. London: Arkana.
Google Scholar

Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

McLuhan, Marshall. 2001. Understanding Media. London: Routledge Classics.
Google Scholar

Morin, Edgar. 1998. Introducción al pensamiento complejo. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Google Scholar

Rickards, Tudor. 1988. Creativity at Work. Aldershot: Gower Publishing Company.
Google Scholar

Rubenson, Daniel L. and Marc A. Runco. 1995. “The Psychoeconomic View of Creative Work in Groups and Organizations.” Creative Innovation Management 4:232-241.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.1995.tb00228.x

Sawyer, R. Keith. 2011. Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Sternberg, Robert J. 2006. “The Nature of Creativity.” Creativity Research Journal 18(1):87-98.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1801_10

Tsoukas, Haridimos. 2009. “Creating Organizational Knowledge Dialogically: An Outline of a Theory.” Pp. 160-176 in The Routledge Companion to Creativity, edited by T. Rickards, M. A. Runco, and S. Moger. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203888841.ch14