When is a bed not a bed? Exploring the interplay of the material and virtual in negotiating home-work boundaries

References

• Ahrentzen, S. B. 1990. “Managing Conflict by Managing Boundaries. How Professional Homeworkers Cope with Multiple Roles at Home.” Environment and Behaviour 22 (6): 723–752. doi:10.1177/0013916590226001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, D. 2009. “Consistency and Adaptability of Managers Working Flexibly: An Approach to Boundary Management.” Paper presented at the 25th EGOS Colloquium, Barcelona, July 2–4.
   Google Scholar
• Armstrong-Stassen, M. 1998. “Alternative Work Arrangements: Meeting the Challenge.” Canadian Psychology 39 (1–2): 108–123. doi:10.1037/h0086799.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashforth, B. E., G. E. Kreiner, and M. Fugate. 2000. “All in a Day’s Work: Boundaries and Micro Role Transitions.” Academy of Management Review 25 (3): 472–491. doi:10.5465/AMR.2000.3363315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailey, D. E., and N. B. Kurland. 2002. “A Review of Telework Research: Findings, New Directions, and Lessons for the Study of Modern Work.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 23 (4): 383–400. doi:10.1002/job.144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baruch, Y. 2000. “Teleworking: Benefits and Pitfalls as Perceived by Professionals and Managers.” New Technology, Work and Employment 15 (1): 34–49. doi:10.1111/1468-005X.00063.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besseyre des Horts, C., K. Dery, and J. MacCormick. 2012. “Paradoxical Consequences of the Use of Blackberrys: An Application of the Job Demand-control-support Model.” In New Ways of Organizing Work, edited by C. Kelliher and J. Richardson, 16–29. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Blaikie, N. 2010. Designing Social Research. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blumer, H. 1954. “What Is Wrong with Social Theory?” American Sociological Review 19 (1): 3–10. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2088165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bowker, G. C., and S. L. Star. 1999. Sorting Things Out. Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brocklehurst, M. 2001. “Power, Identity and New Technology Homework: Implications for ‘New Forms’ of Organizing.” Organization Studies 22 (3): 445–466. doi:10.1177/0170840601223003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brophy, A. 2007. “ A Dad’s Life.” The Irish Times. April 13.
   Google Scholar
• Brophy, A. 2008a. “ A Dad’s Life.” The Irish Times. January 3.
   Google Scholar
• Brophy, A. 2008b. “ A Dad’s Life.” The Irish Times. July 31.
   Google Scholar
• Brophy, A. 2009. “ A Dad’s Life.” The Irish Times. February 17.
   Google Scholar
• Brophy, A. 2010a. “ A Dad’s Life.” The Irish Times. February 16, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Brophy, A. 2010b. “ A Dad’s Life.” The Irish Times. April 27.
   Google Scholar
• Cavazotte, F., A. H. Lemos, and K. Villadsen. 2014. “Corporate Smart Phones: Professionals’ Conscious Engagement in Escalating Work Connectivity.” New Technology, Work and Employment 29 (1): 72–87. doi:10.1111/ntwe.12022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, S. C. 2000. “Work/Family Border Theory: A new Theory of Work/Family Balance.” Human Relations 53 (6): 747–770. doi:10.1177/0018726700536001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, L., J. Duberley, and G. Musson. 2009. “Work Life Balance? An Autoethnographic Exploration of Everyday Home Work Dynamics.” Journal of Management Inquiry 18 (3): 229–241. doi:10.1177/1056492609332316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, M. 2005. “The (Not so Simple) Case for Teleworking: A Study at Lloyd’s of London.” New Technology, Work and Employment 20 (2): 115–132. doi:10.1111/j.1468-005X.2005.00148.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Derks, D., H. van Mierlo, and E. B. Schmitz. 2014. “A Diary Study on Work-related Smartphone Use, Psychological Detachment and Exhaustion: Examining the Role of the Perceived Segmentation Norm.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 19 (1): 74–84. doi:10.1037/a0035076.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, C., and A. P. Bochner. 2000. “Autoethnography, Personal Narrative, Reflexivity.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed., edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 733–768. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Eurostat. 2016. Employed Persons Working from Home as a Percentage of Total Employment. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=lfsa_ehomp&lang=en.
   Google Scholar
• Felstead, A., N. Jewson, A. Phizacklea, and S. Walters. 2002. “Opportunities to Work at Home in the Context of Work-life Balance”. Human Resource Management Journal 12 (1): 54–76. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2002.tb00057.x
   Google Scholar
• Felstead, A., N. Jewson, and S. Walters. 2005. Changing Places of Work. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Furnham, A. 2006. The Psychology of Behaviour at Work. The Individual in the Organization. Hove: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gergen, M., and K. Gergen. 2003. Social Construction. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Golden, A. G., and C. Geisler. 2007. “Work-Life Boundary Management and the Personal Digital Assistant.” Human Relations 60 (3): 519–551. doi:10.1177/0018726707076698.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhaus, J. H., and G. N. Powell. 2006. “When Work and Family are Allies: A Theory of Work-Family Enrichment.” Academy of Management Review 31 (1): 72–92. doi:10.5465/AMR.2006.19379625.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhill, A., and M. Wilson. 2006. “Haven or Hell? Telework, Flexibility and Family in the e-Society: A Marxist Analysis.” European Journal of Information Systems 15: 379–388. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000632
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregg, M. 2011. Work’s Intimacy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hackett, E. J., O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman. 2008. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. 3rd ed. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haddon, L., and H. Lewis. 1994. “The Experience of Teleworking: An Annotated Review.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 (1): 193–223. doi:10.1080/09585199400000010.
   Google Scholar
• Haeger, D. L., and T. Lingham. 2014. “A Trend Toward Work-Life Fusion: A Multi-generational Shift in Technology Use at Work”. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 89: 316–325. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2014.08.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halford, S. 2005. “Hybrid Workspace: Re-spatialisation of Work, Organisation and Management.” New Technology, Work and Employment 20 (1): 19–33. doi:10.1111/j.1468-005X.2005.00141.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halford, S. 2006. “Collapsing the Boundaries? Fatherhood, Organization and Home-Working.” Gender, Work and Organization 13 (4): 383–402. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2006.00313.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halford, S., and P. Leonard. 2001. Gender, Power and Organisations. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Hecht, T. D., and N. J. Allen. 2009. “A Longitudinal Examination of the Work-nonwork Boundary Strength Construct.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 30 (7): 839–862. doi:10.1002/job.579.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, E. J., M. Ferris, and V. Märtinson. 2003. “Does it Matter Where You Work? A Comparison of How Three Work Venues (Traditional Office, Virtual Office, and Home Office) Influence Aspects of Work and Personal/Family Life.” Journal of Vocational Behaviour 63 (2): 220–241. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00042-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hislop, D., P. Bosch-Sijtsema, and A. Zimmermann. 2013. “Introduction for a Special Themed Section: Information and Communication Technologies and the Work–life Boundary.” New Technology, Work and Employment 28 (3): 177–178. doi:10.1111/ntwe.12015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holt, N. 2003. “Representation, Legitimation and Autoethnography: An Autoethnographic Writing Story.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2 (1): 18–28.
   Google Scholar
• Humphreys, M. 2005. “Getting Personal: Reflexivity and Autoethnographic Vignettes.” Qualitative Inquiry 11 (6): 840–860. doi:10.1177/1077800404269425.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irish Business Women. 2008. Balancing Work and Life [online forum]. http://www.irishbusinesswomen.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=10950&start=15 [Accessed 11 February 2011 – now defunct].
   Google Scholar
• Kelliher, C., and D. Anderson. 2010. “Doing More with Less? Flexible Working Practices and the Intensification of Work.” Human Relations 63 (1): 83–106. doi:10.1177/0018726709349199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kingma, S. 2016. “The Constitution of ‘Third Workspaces’ in Between the Home and the Corporate Office.” New Technology, Work and Employment 31 (2): 176–193. doi:10.1111/ntwe.12068.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knapp, J. R., B. R. Smith, G. E. Kreiner, C. Sundaramurthy, and S. L. Barton. 2013. “Managing Boundaries Through Identity Work: The Role of Individual and Organizational Identity Tactics.” Family Business Review 26 (4): 333–355. doi:10.1177/0894486512474036.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreiner, G. E., E. C. Hollensbe, and M. L. Sheep. 2009. “Balancing Borders and Bridges: Negotiating the Work-home Interface via Boundary Work Tactics.” Academy of Management Journal 52 (4): 704–730. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.43669916.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurland, N. B., and D. E. Bailey. 1999. “When Workers Are Here, There, and Everywhere: A Discussion of the Advantages and Challenges of Telework.” Organizational Dynamics 28 (2): 53–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kylin, C., and J. C. Karlsson. 2008. “Re-establishing Boundaries in Home-based Telework.” In Work Less, Live More? Critical Analysis of the Work-life Boundary, edited by C. Warhurst, D. R. Eikhof and A. Haunschild, 173–190. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Lamont, M., and V. Molnar. 2002. “The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences.” Annual Review of Sociology 28: 167–195. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3069239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 1996. Aramis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leonardi, P. M. 2013. “Theoretical Foundations for the Study of Sociomateriality.” Information and Organization 23: 59–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leonardi, P. M., J. W. Treem, and M. H. Jackson. 2010. “The Connectivity Paradox: Using Technology to Both Decrease and Increase Perceptions of Distance in Distributed Work Arrangements.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 38 (1): 85–105. doi:10.1080/00909880903483599.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, S., R. Rapoport, and R. Gambles. 2003. “Reflections on the Integration of Paid Work and the Rest of Life.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 18 (8): 824–841. doi:10.1108/02683940310511908.
   Google Scholar
• MacCormick, J.S., Dery, K., and D.G. Kolb. 2012. “Engaged or Just Connected? Smartphones and Employee Engagement”. Organizational Dynamics, 41, 194-201. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.03.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mann, S., and L. Holdsworth. 2003. “The Psychological Impact of Teleworking: Stress, Emotions and Health.” New Technology, Work and Employment 18 (3): 196–211. doi:10.1111/1468-005X.00121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, K., and G. Musson. 2008. “Men at Work and at Home: Managing Emotion in Telework.” Gender, Work and Organization 15 (1): 31–48. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2007.00353.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matusik, S. F., and A. E. Mickel. 2011. “Embracing or Embattled by Converged Mobile Devices? Users’ Experiences with a Contemporary Connectivity Technology.” Human Relations 64 (8): 1001–1030. doi:10.1177/0018726711405552.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazmanian, M., W. J. Orlikowski, and J. Yates. 2013. “The Autonomy Paradox: The Implications of Mobile Email Devices for Knowledge Professionals.” Organization Science 24 (5): 1337–1357. doi:10.1287/orsc.1120.0806.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAuley, J. 2004. “Hermeneutic Understanding.” In Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, edited by C. Cassell and G. Symon, 192–202. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Mirchandani, K. 1998a. “Protecting the Boundary: Teleworker Insights on the Expansive Concept of ‘Work.’” Gender and Society 12 (2): 168–187. doi:10.1177/089124398012002004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirchandani, K. 1998b. “No Longer a Struggle? Teleworkers’ Reconstruction of the Work-non-work Boundary.” In Teleworking: International Perspectives – From Telecommuting to the Virtual Organisation, edited by P. J. Jackson and J. M. Van der Wielen, 118–135. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mirchandani, K. 2000. “‘The Best of Both Worlds’ and ‘Cutting My Own Throat’: Contradictory Images of Home-based Work.” Qualitative Sociology 23 (2): 159–182. doi:10.1023/A:1005448415689.
   Google Scholar
• Musson, G., and S. Tietze. 2004. “Feelin’ Groovy: Appropriating Time in Home-based Telework.” Culture and Organization 10 (3): 251–264. doi:10.1080/14759550412331297174.
   Google Scholar
• Mutch, A. 2013. “Sociomateriality – Taking the Wrong Turning?” Information and Organization 23 (1): 28–40. doi: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2013.02.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nippert-Eng, C. 1996. Home and Work: Negotiating Boundaries Through Everyday Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Orlikowski, W. J. 2007. “Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work.” Organization Studies 28 (9): 1435–1448. doi:10.1177/0170840607081138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orlikowski, W. J. 2009. “The Sociomateriality of Organisational Life: Considering Technology in Management Research”. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1–17. doi: 10.1093/cje/bep058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson, J. 2012. “Flexwork in Canada: Coping with Dis-ease?” In New Ways of Organizing Work, edited by C. Kelliher and J. Richardson, 94–107. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rinkinen, J., M. Jalas, and E. Shove. 2015. “Object Relations in Accounts of Everyday Life.” Sociology 49 (5): 870–885. doi:10.1177/0038038515577910.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, H., P. J. O’Connell, and F. McGinnity. 2009. “The Impact of Flexible Working Arrangements on Work-life Conflict and Work Pressure in Ireland.” Gender, Work and Organization 16 (1): 73–97. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00431.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schatzki, T. 1996. Social Practices. A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schatzki, T. 2010. “Materiality and Social Life.” Nature and Culture 5 (2): 123–149. doi:10.3167/nc.2010.050202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheehy, N. 2008. “Telework.” In An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology. 2nd ed., edited by N. Chmiel, 190–208. Malden: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Star, S. L. 2010. “This is not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept.” Science, Technology and Human Values 35 (5): 601–617. doi:10.1177/0162243910377624.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Star, S. L., and J. R. Griesemer. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, Translations and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology.” Social Studies of Science 19 (3): 387–420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan, C. 2000. “Space and the Intersection of Work and Family in Homeworking Households.” Community, Work & Family 3 (2): 185–204. doi:10.1080/713658903.
   Google Scholar
• Sullivan, C. 2003. “What’s in a Name? Definitions and Conceptualisations of Teleworking and Homeworking.” New Technology, Work and Employment 18 (3): 158–165. doi:10.1111/1468-005X.00118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Symon, G., and K. Pritchard. 2015. “Performing the Responsive and Committed Employee Through the Sociomaterial Mangle of Connection.” Organization Studies 36 (2): 241–263. doi:10.1177/0170840614556914.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tietze, S. 2002. “When ‘Work’ Comes ‘Home’: Coping Strategies of Teleworkers and Their Families.” Journal of Business Ethics 41 (4): 385–396. doi:10.1023/A:1021236426657.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tietze, S. 2005. “Discourse as Strategic Coping Resource: Managing the Interface between ‘Home’ and ‘Work.’” Journal of Organizational Change Management 18 (1): 48–62. doi:10.1108/09534810510579841.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tietze, S., and G. Musson. 2003. “The Times and Temporalities of Home-based Telework.” Personnel Review 32 (4): 438–455. doi:10.1108/00483480310477524.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tietze, S., and G. Musson. 2005. “Recasting the Home-work Relationship: A Case of Mutual Adjustment.” Organization Studies 26 (9): 1331–1352. doi:10.1177/0170840605054619.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tietze, S., and G. Musson. 2010. “Identity, Identity Work and the Experience of Working from Home.” Journal of Management Development 29 (2): 148–156. doi:10.1108/02621711011019288.
   Google Scholar
• Van Amsterdam, N. 2015. “Othering the ‘Leaky Body’. An Autoethnographic Story about Expressing Breast Milk in the Workplace.” Culture and Organization 21 (3): 269–287. doi:10.1080/14759551.2014.887081.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villadsen, K. 2016. “Constantly Online and the Fantasy of ‘Work-life Balance’: Reinterpreting Work-connectivity as Cynical Practice and Fetishism.” Culture and Organization. Early online. doi: 10.1080/14759551.2016.1220381
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wajcman, J. 2006. “New Connections: Social Studies of Science and Technology and Studies of Work.” Work, Employment and Society 20 (4): 773–786. doi:10.1177/0950017006069814.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wajcman, J., and E. Rose. 2011. “Constant Connectivity: Rethinking Interruptions at Work.” Organization Studies 32 (7): 941–961. doi:10.1177/0170840611410829.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wapshott, R., and O. Mallett. 2012. “The Spatial Implications of Homeworking: A Lefebvrian Approach to the Rewards and Challenges of Home-based Work.” Organization 19 (1): 63–79. doi:10.1177/1350508411405376.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wenger, E. 2000. “Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems.” Organization 7 (2): 225–246. doi:10.1177/135050840072002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar