Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Spaces and Places from the Imagination to Reality: The Case of the Global COVID-19 Spatial Lockdowns

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Social Entrepreneurship and Grand Challenges

  • 303 Accesses

Abstract

The concept of the radical imaginary is a vital element for incorporating the human capacity to impart meaning and value on various objects. Socializing this imaginary is a vital process for meeting grand challenges in the autopoietic society. In this chapter, we demonstrate the role of place as a practical manifestation of the social imaginary and space as a tool for rule-setting behavior, through a longitudinal case analysis which explores how social entrepreneurs responded to spatial disruption in light of the COVID-19 lockdowns. In doing so, we analyze which elements of space social entrepreneurs engage with to affect change. We induce the concept of sociomateriality to explore the extent to which the digital dimension of space is adopted as an intermediary through which space is (pre)constructed and enables social imaginaries to manifest in the physical realm. We further induce the concept of psychological distance to examine how space is used as a tool for communicating meaning through the construction of space. This chapter offers an overview of the Netnographic and practice tracing methodologies for future researchers interested in grand challenges.

Imagination does not become great until human beings, given the courage and the strength, use it to create

—Maria Montessori

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. American economic review, 91(5), 1369–1401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler, E., & Pouliot, V. (Eds.). (2011). International practices (Vol. 119). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agnew, J. (2011). Space and place. In Handbook of geographical knowledge (pp. 316–331). SAGE.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • André, K., Cho, C. H., & Laine, M. (2018). Reference points for measuring social performance: Case study of a social business venture. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(5), 660–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Archibald, M. M., Ambagtsheer, R. C., Casey, M. G., & Lawless, M. (2019). Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: Perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919874596.

  • Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2012). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Revista de Administração, 47(3), 370–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballon, P., Pierson, J., & Delaere, S. (2015). Test and experimentation platforms for broadband innovation: Examining European practice. Available at SSRN 1331557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2002). Growing primacy of human agency in adaptation and change in the electronic era. European Psychologist, 7(1), 2–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2011). Poor economics: A radical rethinking of the way to fight global poverty. Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & Knox-Hayes, J. (2013). The time and space of materiality in organizations and the natural environment. Organization & Environment, 26(1), 61–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckmann, M. (2011). The social case as a business case: Making sense of social entrepreneurship from an ordonomic perspective. In Corporate citizenship and new governance (pp. 91–115). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Beckmann, M., Zeyen, A., & Krzeminska, A. (2014). Mission, finance, and innovation: The similarities and differences between social entrepreneurship and social business. In Social business: Theory, practice, and criticial perspectives. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskar, R. (1998). Philosophy and scientific realism. In Critical realism: Essential readings. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blagoev, B., Costas, J., & Kärreman, D. (2019). ‘We are all herd animals’: Community and organizationality in coworking spaces. Organization, 26(6), 894-916.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouncken, R. B., & Reuschl, A. J. (2018). Coworking-spaces: How a phenomenon of the sharing economy builds a novel trend for the workplace and for entrepreneurship. Review of Managerial Science, 12(1), 317–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branzei, O., Parker, S. C., Moroz, P. W., & Gamble, E. (2018). Going pro-social: Extending the individual-venture nexus to the collective level. Journal of Business Venturing, 33, 551–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calzada, I., & Cobo, C. (2015). Unplugging: Deconstructing the smart city. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), 23–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castoriadis, C. (1977). The French Left. Telos, 1977(34), 49–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castoriadis, C. (1987). The imaginary institution of society. Mit Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamlee-Wright, E., & Storr, V. H. (2010). The role of social entrepreneurship in post-Katrina community recovery. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 2(1–2), 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamlee-Wright, E., & Storr, V. H. (2014). Commercial relationships and spaces after disaster. Society, 51(6), 656–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H. S., Mitchell, R. K., Brigham, K. H., Howell, R., & Steinbauer, R. (2018). Perceived psychological distance, construal processes, and abstractness of entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(3), 296–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costales, E. (2022). Identifying sources of innovation: Building a conceptual framework of the Smart City through a social innovation perspective. Cities, 120, 103459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Moura, E. O., & Bispo, M. D. S. (2020). Sociomateriality: Theories, methodology, and practice. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration, 37(3), 350–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drakopoulou Dodd, S., & Anderson, A. R. (2007). Mumpsimus and the mything of the individualistic entrepreneur. International Small Business Journal, 25(4), 341–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutta, S. (2017). Creating in the crucibles of nature’s fury: Associational diversity and local social entrepreneurship after natural disasters in California, 1991–2010. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(3), 443–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eyal, T., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). Judging near and distant virtue and vice. Journal of experimental social psychology, 44(4), 1204–1209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenwick, T., Doyle, S., Michael, M. K., & Scoles, J. (2015). Matters of learning and education: Sociomaterial approaches in ethnographic research. In MultiPluriTrans in educational ethnography: Approaching the multimodality, plurality and translocality of educational realities. Transcript Verlag/Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, T. F. (2000). A space for place in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 463–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goermar, L., Barwinski, R. W., Bouncken, R. B., & Laudien, S. M. (2020). Co-creation in coworking-spaces: Boundary conditions of diversity. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 19, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldenberg, J., & Levy, M. (2009). Distance is not dead: Social interaction and geographical distance in the internet era. arXiv preprint arXiv:0906.3202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldhagen, S. W. (2017). Welcome to your world: How the built environment shapes our lives. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldhagen, S. W., & Gallo, A. (2017). Welcome to your world: How the built environment shapes our lives. Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of management journal, 54(1), 73–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haeffele, S., & Craig, A. W. (2020). Commercial social spaces in the post-disaster context. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 9, 303–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hampton, K. N., & Gupta, N. (2008). Community and social interaction in the wireless city: Wi-fi use in public and semi-public spaces. New Media & Society, 10(6), 831–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) (2022). Industry Perspectives: Health Equity. [Online] Available at: https://www.himss.org/resources/industry-perspectives-health-equity

  • Hsu, D. K., Wiklund, J., & Cotton, R. D. (2017). Success, failure, and entrepreneurial reentry: An experimental assessment of the veracity of self–efficacy and prospect theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 19–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C., Lee, J. Y., & Lee, T. (2019). Institutionalizing place: Materiality and meaning in Boston’s North End. In P. Haack, J. Sieweke, & L. Wessel (Eds.), Microfoundations of Institutions. Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 65B, pp. 211–239). Emerald Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozinets, R. V. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozinets, R. V. (2010). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, S., Clauss, T., Breier, M., Gast, J., Zardini, A., & Tiberius, V. (2020). The economics of COVID-19: Initial empirical evidence on how family firms in five European countries cope with the corona crisis. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(5), 1067–1092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leca, B., & Naccache, P. (2006). A critical realist approach to institutional entrepreneurship. Organization, 13(5), 627–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technical systems: What do these terms mean? How are they different? Do we need them. In Materiality and organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World (pp. 25–48). Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2010). What’s under construction here? Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 1–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322(5905), 1201–1205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lô, A., & Diochon, P. F. (2019). Unsilencing power dynamics within third spaces. The case of Renault’s Fab Lab. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 35(2), 101039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2009). Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 419–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mair, J., Marti, I., & Ventresca, M. J. (2012). Building inclusive markets in rural Bangladesh: How intermediaries work institutional voids. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 819–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. S. (1871). Principles of political economy: With some of their applications to social philosophy (Vol. 1). Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., & Hillier, J. (2013). Social innovation: intuition, precept,concept. The International Handbook on Social Innovation: collective action, sociallearning and transdisciplinary research, 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, A. (Ed.). (2006). Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. OUP Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2020). Coronavirus and self-employment in the UK. Accessible at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/coronavirusandselfemploymentintheuk/latest

  • Ozimek, A. (2021). Freelance Forward Economist Report. Upwork. [online] Available at: https://www.upwork.com/research/freelance-forward-2021

  • Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. (2010). Diary studies in organizational research. Journal of Personnel Psychology., 9(2), 79–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place: Cafes. Coffee shops, community centers, beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts, and how they get you through the day. Paragon House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). 10 Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, K. D., & Pyle, G. F. (1991). The geography and mortality of the 1918 influenza pandemic. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 65(1), 4–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petriglieri, G., Ashford, S. J., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2019). Agony and ecstasy in the gig economy: Cultivating holding environments for precarious and personalized work identities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 124–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pouliot, V. (2015). Practice tracing. In Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool (pp. 237–259). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, E. E., Hamann, R., Bitzer, V., & Baker, T. (2018). Bringing the elephant into the room? Enacting conflict in collective prosocial organizing. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(5), 623–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Praszkier, R., Nowak, A., & Zablocka-Bursa, A. (2009). Social capital built by social entrepreneurs and the specific personality traits that facilitate the process. Social Psychology [Psychologia Spoleczna], 4(10–12), 42–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard U. P.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spinuzzi, C. (2012). Working alone together: Coworking as emergent collaborative activity. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26(4), 399–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, U., Uhlaner, L. M., & Stride, C. (2015). Institutions and social entrepreneurship: The role of institutional voids, institutional support, and institutional configurations. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(3), 308–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storr, V. H. (2009). Why the market? Markets as social and moral spaces. Journal of Markets & Morality, 12(2), 277–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Täuscher, K., & Laudien, S. M. (2018). Understanding platform business models: A mixed methods study of marketplaces. European Management Journal, 36(3), 319–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tremblay, D. G., & Scaillerez, A. (2020). Coworking spaces: New places for business initiatives? Journal of Innovation Economics Management, 1, 39–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickham, R. E., & Knee, C. R. (2013). Examining temporal processes in diary studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(9), 1184–1198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis, P., & Trondman, M. (2000). Manifesto for ethnography. Ethnography, 1(1), 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, A. L., Meyer, A. D., Reay, T., & Staggs, J. (2020). Maintaining places of social inclusion: Ebola and the emergency department. Administrative Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1777/0001839220916401.

  • Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business models: Lessons from the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 308–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeyen, A., & Beckmann, M. (2018). Social entrepreneurship and Business ethics: Understanding the contribution and normative ambivalence of purpose-driven venturing. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zeyen, A., Beckmann, M., & Akhavan, R. (2014). Social Entrepreneurship Business Models: Managing Innovation for Social and Economic Value Creation. In C.-P. Zimth & C. G. von Mueller (Eds.), Managementperspektiven für die Zivilgesellschaft des 21. Jahrhunderts: Management als Liberal Art (pp. 107–132). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business and Management, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, UK

    Emilio Costales & Anica Zeyen

Authors
  1. Emilio Costales
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anica Zeyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emilio Costales .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Costales, E., Zeyen, A. (2022). Spaces and Places from the Imagination to Reality: The Case of the Global COVID-19 Spatial Lockdowns. In: Social Entrepreneurship and Grand Challenges. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07450-9_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation