Running head: ‘In-between spaces’ for collaborative innovation

‘IN-BETWEEN SPACES’ FOR COLLABORATIVE INNOVATION:

ELUCIDATING INTERRELATED RELATIONAL SPACES
Susanne Ollila1 and Anna Yström2

1 Department of Technology Management and Economics, Chalmers University of

Technology, 41296 Gothenburg, Sweden. susanne.ollila@chalmers.se;
2 Department of Management and Engineering, Linköping University, 58183 Linköping,
Sweden. anna.ystrom@liu.se

ABSTRACT
When organizations join forces to collaborate for creativity and innovation, they embark on a
journey in a ‘space in-between’, created through their interaction with other collaborating
organizational actors. This organizational space is not a pre-existing physical container, rather
it should be understood as a moving and evolving process. In-between spaces are relational
spaces of becoming, embracing disorder and ambiguity, created through social relationships.
As such, in-between spaces also imply a state of ‘liminality’ where boundaries, actor motives
and mandates are often unclear and fluid, which can make difficult for practitioners to navigate
the continuously negotiated collaborative relationships.

This chapter explores the multitude of relationships in spaces in-between, drawing on studies
of triple-helix collaborations in Northern Europe. Grounded in research on organizational
spaces and collaborative relationships, the chapter outlines three distinct spaces nuancing our
understanding of interactions in in-between spaces; the member space, the learning space, and
the delivery space. This chapter articulates what separates these spaces, discusses the
interrelation of the spaces, and problematizes the sustaining of spaces over time. The
implications of the variety of collaborative relationships in spaces in-between are outlined,
contributing to further theorizing of collaborative innovation.

Keywords: Collaborative innovation, in-between, space, boundaries, qualitative case study

1
 Running head: ‘In-between spaces’ for collaborative innovation

INTRODUCTION
The locus of innovation has shifted to networks of organizations engaged in learning (Powell
et al., 1996) as organizations increasingly strive to bridge boundaries and seek new relationships
to co-create solutions to problems (Agogué et al., 2013; Dougherty, 2017; Gray & Purdy, 2018).
These relationships can be structured in various collaborative organizational arrangements, e.g.,
partnerships, networks, intermediaries, clusters, platforms, or meta-organizations. Some
consider the purpose of joint action existing from the moment the inter-organizational
collaboration is initiated, while others regard collaboration as a relatively unstructured
organizational phenomenon, where deciding on the purpose of joint action is in fact an outcome
of collaboration (Phillips et al., 2000). Collaboration then becomes an emergent social process
emanating from collaborative relationships within and across organizations, where it is
important to acknowledge shared rules, norms and structures, as well as balancing multiple
organizational identities, conflicting loyalties and roles of actors involved (Alvesson et al.,
2008; Hardy et al., 2005). Acquiring this perspective on inter-organizational collaboration, the
current chapter explores social relations building on research suggesting that collaboration
involves wrestling with differences through negotiation, trust-building, and consensus-building
in context (Gray & Purdy, 2018; Oliver et al., 2020; Phillips et al., 2000).

Within organization studies, an increased interest in the spatial dimensions of organizing can
be noted in the past 30 years, referred to as the ‘spatial turn’, initially mainly acknowledging
the spatial and material reality of organizations (Kornberger & Clegg, 2004). However, e.g.,
Sydow (2004, p. 1) suggests that what matters is not “place or space per se, but the social
quality of (or enabled/enhanced by) spatial proximity […], for example, in terms of reduced
cultural distance, homogeneity of customers, possibility of sharing resources, similarity of work
practices, and so forth” (Sydow, 2004, p. 1), indicating that there is more to organizational
space than what is captured in the physical dimension. Previous research has noted the creative
potential of places and spaces in different organizational contexts (Grandadam et al., 2013;
Hardy & Maguire, 2010; Kellogg, 2009; Zietsma & Lawrence, 2010) and more recently,
scholars studying organizational space has concluded that adopting a spatial optic can reveal
social dimensions of boundaries, distances and movements within and between spaces
(Weinfurtner & Seidl, 2019). This resonates well with a need to further understand inter-
organizational dynamics and in particular the social relations that are essential to inter-
organizational collaboration.

In this chapter, we adopt the notion of "in-between spaces" (Ollila & Yström, 2020; Yström &
Agogué, 2020) stemming from the innovation management field, to further explore social
relations in inter-organizational collaboration for innovation. In-between spaces are defined as
relational spaces of becoming, embracing disorder and ambiguity, created through social
interaction (Ollila & Yström, 2020). This definition builds on the fundamental premise
proposed by Lefebvre (1991) that space is comprised of multiple dimensions, particularly
highlighting the social space (consisting of social relations enabling the production and
reproduction of space), but not discarding the other dimensions such as physical space
(essentially material extending from habitation to territories) and mental space (accommodating
the sphere of theory and meaning). Accordingly, in-between spaces imply a state of ‘liminality’
(Bucher & Langley, 2016) where boundaries, actor motives and mandates are often unclear and
fluid (Yström & Agogué, 2020). As such, the notion of in-between spaces resonates with
dimensions proposed by scholars from other disciplines. Similar to the notion of interstitial
spaces (Furnari, 2014), in-between spaces are settings where individuals from different fields
devote limited time to interact around common activities. Parallel to liminal spaces (Turner,
1977; Van Gennep, 2019), in-between spaces can also represent how previous social
environments, hierarchies and traditions are temporarily dissolved. Akin to experimental spaces
(Zietsma & Lawrence, 2010), in-between spaces constitute a temporary, experimental setting,

2
 Running head: ‘In-between spaces’ for collaborative innovation

a place of play and development. Finally, just like third spaces (Bhabha, 2012), in-between
spaces imply a mixture of meaning-making, constituting a culture of ‘both-and’ as well as
‘neither-nor’.

With this backdrop, the aim of the chapter is to explore space “dynamically” (Langley, 2007,
p. 271) by elucidating interrelated relational spaces in in-between spaces for collaborative
innovation and to do this we integrate literature on organizational space (e.g., Bucher &
Langley, 2016; Lefebvre, 1991; Ollila & Yström, 2020; Stephenson et al., 2020) and
collaborative relationships (e.g., Phillips et al., 2000). Firstly, we explore the interaction and
expose relationships to identify the relational spaces, defined as “bounded social settings in
which interactions among actors are organized in distinctive ways” (Bucher & Langley, 2016,
p. 594), highlighting different social orders made up of rules, objectives, roles and
responsibilities negotiated through interactions (Phillips et al., 2000). Accordingly, we
acknowledge the “tangled web of dynamic, ambiguous, and partially overlapping goal
hierarchies” (Vangen & Huxham, 2011, p 752) and the package of interests, motivations, goals,
and priorities from organizations (Husted & Michailova, 2010) that shape assumptions about
participation in inter-organizational collaboration. Secondly, we draw on Bucher and Langley
(2016) and Lamont and Molnár (2002) stating that spaces are set apart by social and symbolic
boundaries, for outlining the particularities of each space. Further elaborating on the
relationality of spaces provides important insights on the many challenges of inter-
organizational collaboration such as mis-matching expectations among members and the high
risk of failure in collaborative innovation. Three triple-helix collaborations in Northern Europe
constitute the empirical context for exploring: How can the dynamics of in-between spaces be
explicated through collaborative relationships?

Based on a multi-case analysis, the chapter outlines three interrelated but analytically distinct
relational spaces; the member space, the learning space, and the delivery space, characterized
by different types of collaborative relationships. Whereas the member space is characterized
through positional interactions, the learning space emerge through transformational interactions
and the delivery space is set apart through primarily transactional interaction. The proposed
theoretical conceptualizations and definitions of relational spaces adds to the early-stage
theorizing around spaces in-between organizations (Ollila & Yström, 2020). Specifically, the
study elucidates the interactions and plurality of collaborative relationships creating space and
thereby contributes to further conceptualizing the dynamic and emergent processes
characterizing inter-organizational collaboration for innovation (see e.g., Gray & Purdy, 2018;
Oliver et al., 2020; Phillips et al., 2000; Vangen, 2017).

THEORETICAL FRAMING
Organizations and In-between Spaces

Previous research has studied in-between spaces within organizations as centrally located
physical spaces such as corridors, functioning as transitory space allowing norms to be
suspended and offering opportunities for people to connect with others that they normally did
not encounter (Lee et al., 2020). Extending beyond the boundaries of an organization, research
on in-between spaces has studied university-industry-society centers (Agogué et al., 2013;
Ollila & Elmquist, 2011), incubators (Ometto et al., 2019), fab-labs (Furnari, 2014), and social
networks (Wilner et al., 2017), inducing “new arrangements” (Daskalaki et al., 2016) and
“hybrid combinations” (Perkmann et al., 2019) which could foster creativity (Shortt, 2015) and
innovation (Cartel et al., 2019).

3
 Running head: ‘In-between spaces’ for collaborative innovation

In this chapter, in-between space is considered as a process iteratively evolving through

different human-material arrangements (Stephenson et al., 2020), acquiring its form in, by and
through the practices that comprises it. It is considered a space where individuals can hold
multiple identities and ideas intact and draw from each at different times (Bhabha, 1996),
inviting individuals to embrace different sets of traditions, practices, norms and values and
choosing when to use them. With its specific characteristics of being neither-nor and both-and,
space in-between is a liminal space (Van Gennep, 2019) in the sense that it is a connective
tissue between different ways of structuring identity, time, community, interactions and
practices. In-between spaces are social products, each with their own spatial practice, ensuring
continuity and some degree of cohesion and symbolism, and permitting new actions to occur
while prohibiting yet others’ (Lefebvre, 1991). Additional to being multiplex – not only created
from plurality but also preserving it, in-between space is characterized by being in becoming –
continuously evolving through interaction and never reaching a complete state, being recursive
– continuously reconfigured through the interaction between space as a structure that shape
action and action that re-shape and reinforces space, and being translative – providing
individuals the opportunity to be something “other”, to break free from existing institutions to
act collectively (Ollila & Yström, 2020).

Space Boundaries and Collaborative Relationships in In-between Spaces

In this study, the ordering and reordering that occurs by setting boundaries and positioning what
is inside and what is outside the space is central (Vásquez & Cooren, 2013). Bucher and Langley
(2016) emphasize boundaries by defining “spaces” as bounded social settings characterized by
types of interaction. They present four types of boundaries: (1) social boundaries indicating
who is included in relation to participation in the original routine, (2) physical boundaries
indicating location distant or not from the enactment of the original routine, (3) temporal
boundaries indicating duration and recurrence over time as represented in schedules, and (4)
symbolic boundaries indicating markers such as labels and artifacts that determine which
interaction belong to the space. Based on this, Bucher and Langley (2016) identified two spaces
– reflective and experimental – labels signifying the predominant type of interaction. In the
current study, we draw on the four types of boundaries and we consider interaction and space
boundaries as co-constructing each other.

Likewise, the notion of collaborative relationships between the actors in in-between spaces is
critical. The use of control through legitimate authority (Ouchi, 1980) to manage the situation
is limited to non-existent in in-between spaces. As the participants remain relatively
autonomous and need to be convinced to act, they instead negotiate roles and responsibilities.
Negotiating collaborative relationships revolves around the roles of different participants and
the problem to be addressed, relying extensively on the organizational practices of the
participants (Phillips et al., 2000). In in-between spaces, organizations struggle to overcome the
‘unstructuredness’ inherent when working across organizational boundaries as participants
draw on a range of rules and resources based in the institutional field they are part of (ibid).
This variety of rules and resources is a critical element in the negotiations that constitute
collaboration according to Phillips et al. (2000). Three aspects of collaborative processes are
negotiated: 1) the definition of the issue or problem that the partners intend to address through
collaboration, 2) the membership of the collaboration, and 3) the appropriate practices to adopt
to address the problem. The objectives of the relationships are critical as they limit the potential
outcome of the collaboration and play an important part in determining who can be a member
in the relationships and what role members will have in the relationships. This creates
boundaries, leading to certain groups being included and others being excluded from joining.

4
 Running head: ‘In-between spaces’ for collaborative innovation

METHODOLOGY
Research Design and Case Selection
In this chapter qualitative case studies (Eisenhardt, 1989) of three triple-helix collaborations in
Northern Europe constitute illustrative examples of spaces in-between. This is considered a
suitable research design to provide rich, in-depth insights and a strong foundation for theory
building (Siggelkow, 2007) around in-between spaces. In particular, a multiple-case study
approach offers variation in the empirical evidence and a broader exploration of the research
question (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Stake, 2013). Consequently, the choice of cases is
based on their potential of contributing to theory development among the set of cases
(Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007), indicative of a theoretical sampling strategy, which is common
in grounded theory to support theory generation from data (Charmaz, 2014). Brought together,
the cases can illustrate critical aspects how relationships and interaction define in-between
spaces.

To further enrich our theorizing, we engaged in action learning processes in each of the three
case studies (Coghlan & Coughlan, 2015; Yström et al., 2019). Action learning belongs to a
family of research approaches in which knowledge is produced from, and used in, action. It
involves researchers working alongside practitioners in organizational processes and practices,
and adopting this approach provides a richness of insight impossible any other way (Eden &
Huxham, 1996). Each of our case studies had a particular action learning process, but they all
consisted of the six components characterizing action learning (Coghlan & Coughlan, 2015;
Marquardt et al., 2018): focused on the core problem of creating conditions for interaction to
support value creation. In all cases we worked with a small group of orchestrators or
coordinators who were dedicated to learning and committed to change. We, the researchers,
facilitated the reflecting process during our extended conversations with these leaders. Further
details are outlined in the section on Action learning process.

The three cases have some boundary conditions: they are large-scale triple-helix collaborations
located in Northern Europe that have been ongoing for more than 5 years with a combination
of public and private funding with the ambitions of organizing collective activities in pursuit of
innovation to promote industrial/regional development and sustainability. They had similar
concerns about understanding conditions for interaction in each setting, and how members
could relate to one another, and indicated an interest in learning more about multi-stakeholder
management to support value creation.

The cases also differ on some dimensions (e.g. sector, size, maturity, coordination), which
supports explicating the nuances of interactions in in-between spaces. They were set in different
industrial sectors and vary in partner size (the smallest 15 members and the largest 49
members). Although the collaborations had been up and running for some time, the emergence
and development of each collaboration had slightly different paces (2 cases seemed slightly
more mature in their collaboration, despite another case being running the longest) and the
collaborations were led or coordinated in slightly different ways (2 coordinators in 2 cases, 1
main coordinator in the remaining case).

Acknowledging these variations in the cases allows our analysis to go beyond the identification
of superficial similarities and contribute towards both naturalistic and analytical generalization
(Patton, 2014; Stake, 1995). However, it should be made clear that our analysis did not have a
comparative focus, but rather strived to elicit what each case could contribute to theorizing
around the interaction and relationships in in-between spaces. We also acknowledge that
learning from the cases may extend beyond such limits, depending on the reader’s

5
 Running head: ‘In-between spaces’ for collaborative innovation

interpretations and ability to draw parallels (so-called isomorphic learning, see Buchanan and
Denyer (2013)).

Case Descriptions
The three cases are outlined below and summarized in Table 1.

- INSERT TABLE 1 HERE -

The Sustainable Mobility collaboration includes geographically proximate actors in the

mobility sector, encompassing approximately 15 members from industry, academia, and
societal actors. It was initiated to develop new solutions for urban transportation, primarily
through network activities, and joint projects utilizing a shared test bed. A small management
team of two coordinators has a critical role in guiding the collaboration. As the collaboration
has been ongoing since 2013, it has reached a rather mature phase, with partners being well-
acquainted with one another and building up experience of working together towards the joint
goal. Still, being able to deliver on set-out goals in terms of tangible outcomes requiring the
involvement and cooperation among multiple actors was perceived as challenging. It was the
expressed needs of the coordinators to further enhance joint value creation and value capture
methods in the collaboration that formed the foundation for our action learning processes.

The FutureChem collaboration includes geographically proximate actors in the materials- and
chemical industry, encompassing approximately 50 members from industry, academia, and
societal actors. It was initiated to promote a fossil-free region, primarily through networking
activities, seminars, and funding for joint pilot projects. Two coordinators and three focus area
leaders organize the activities and lead the collaboration. Established in 2016, the collaboration
has reached a rather mature phase, with partners being familiar with one another and
implemented routines supporting collaboration towards the joint goal. Still, delivering tangible
results requiring the involvement and cooperation among multiple actors was perceived as
challenging. It was the expressed needs from the two coordinators regarding the need to create
engagement among all partners to enable both joint value creation and value capture, and to
contribute to the ambitious goal of a fossil-free region that formed the foundation for our action
learning process.

The Ocean West collaboration includes geographically proximate actors in the maritime sector,
approximately 30 actors from industry, academia, and societal actors. As such, it was initiated
to promote innovation and regional development in six sub-clusters, each targeting a different
area of the industry, primarily through networking activities as well as seed funding for
collaborative projects. Through its design, a strong link between industry and academia was
intended by appointing two ambassadors per sub-cluster (one from industry and one from
academia), tasked to act as spokespersons for this area. The cluster organization was held
together by a small management team, where the main coordinator from the regional
government has significant influence in sustaining the collaboration, not just through the
funding provided, but also in a strong commitment and personal dedication to the collaboration.
Despite the collaboration going on since 2012, it experienced problems in attracting and
maintaining devoted ambassadors and struggled in getting joint projects to fully deliver on set-
out goals. It was the expressed needs from the main coordinator regarding the need to ensure
commitment from all partners to achieve the desired impact that formed the foundation for our
action learning process.

6
 Running head: ‘In-between spaces’ for collaborative innovation

Data Collection
Engaging in action learning provides extensive opportunities for data collection (Coghlan &
Coughlan, 2015). We used a variety of data collection methods such as semi-structured
interviews (n=37), participant observations (n=10) and informal conversations with
managers/coordinators (n=32) to capture the interactions and relationships studied (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2015). The data collection took place over periods of 1-2 years in the different cases.
As mentioned, action learning processes places central emphasis on joint sensemaking and
learning involving both researchers and practitioners, e.g., through dialogue, seminars, and
workshops (Coghlan & Shani, 2014; Yström et al., 2019), elaborated in the section below. Table
2 summarizes the main data collection sources.

- INSERT TABLE 2 HERE -

Action Learning Process

The action learning processes in each case study took slightly different forms but recurring
reflective conversations with coordinators/orchestrators constituted the core of the action
learning processes (see details on Table 3). With Sustainable Mobility, we worked closely with
the two orchestrators and the work of the steering group to learn more about member
organizations’ perception of the collaboration and how to better support value creation and
value capture processes. In Future Chem, we worked together with the two coordinators to
develop new tools and methods supporting value creation and value capture in the collaborative
work and joint projects. With Ocean West, we engaged representatives in various roles from
the collaboration in discussions around the organization, management, and value creation of
the collaboration to support the coordinating team in increasing impact and accelerate transition
in the region. It was through these recurring conversations with coordinators/orchestrators that
e.g., workshops and events involving other practitioners were created, planned, and followed
up.

- INSERT TABLE 3 HERE -

Data Analysis
The first step of data analysis was based on information from written documentation and
insights from conversations with management, where the development of each collaboration
was discussed between the authors to arrive at a joint understanding of its history and central
activities/events during the time of our studies. Combining this understanding with a first
review of interview transcripts and notes from observations and conversations formed our
preliminary case narratives (Yin, 2003).

Second, once the preliminary case narratives had been agreed on, we focused on the role of
social interactions and relationships in the collaborations. By means of open coding similar to
that prescribed by Strauss and Corbin (2008), we reviewed the transcripts looking for specific
accounts of social interaction and relationships and how they impacted the collaboration. We
could note across the cases how critical such aspects was for the outcomes of the collaboration,
in establishing ‘the rules of the game’ in the in-between space. It became clear to us based on
how different actors perceived the playing field and associated expectations that there may in
fact be different types of in-between spaces, and this was used to structure the data in 1st order
codes and 2nd order categories (see figure 1 for an overview of the data structure). Specific
accounts from interviews and observations and workshop notes were extracted (Patton, 2014)
in support of the identified spaces.

7
 Running head: ‘In-between spaces’ for collaborative innovation

- INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE -

Inspired by this insight, we turned to theory to make sense out of these initial, grounded findings
indicating three types of spaces. In doing so, we read more about definitions, characteristics,
boundaries of spaces as well as relationships and social interaction. Based on this, we could
further characterize the three spaces (Bucher & Langley, 2016; Lamont & Molnár, 2002) in
terms of differing relational aspects such as norms, rules, objectives, roles, and responsibilities,
building on Phillips et al. (2000), as depicted in Table 4. Following this, we adopted the
framework of Bucher and Langley (2016) to delineate the boundaries of the identified spaces
in terms of social, physical, temporal and symbolic boundaries, as depicted in Table 5. As a
final step we explored the relationship between the identified spaces, how interaction in one is
creating and informing another. As a result, a process model emerged of how the three spaces
are related through changed interaction (see Figure 2).

FINDINGS
Our study reveals three distinct spaces – the member space, the learning space, and the delivery
space – set apart by qualitatively different collaborative relationships. The names of the spaces
were selected to indicate the types of interaction associated with each space. Table 4 provides
an overview of the spaces, followed by descriptive accounts from the cases.

- INSERT TABLE 4 HERE -

Member Space
We observed that members just by joining the collaboration and associating with the jointly
agreed upon vision and relating to other member organizations create a member space. The
member space is fundamental to in-between spaces, as it manifests the collaboration as a
collective space partly outside of the boundaries of the member organization, both socially and
symbolically, in terms of separating members from non-members. This space is emerging from
collaborative association and interaction, although types of memberships can also differ
(active/passive, formal/informal, clear/fuzzy) as described by Linda from University C,
member of Future Chem: “Many are included in the e-mail list, but you have to be active to get
value out of your membership”. The differences between the member organizations as well as
their type of membership create new relationships and a social order in the member space. Some
members are paying a fee to join the steering group and thus participate in the strategic decision-
making around the collaboration. The member space is also influenced by how the members
are resourcing and organizing their participation in the collaboration, where each member has
the responsibility to organize their own participation according to their own preferences and
decisions. Kim, a coordinating team member from Ocean West described it as: ”I think one just
have to accept that [the organizations in the sub clusters] differ, and if it is unclear or not… I
think it is about finding their roles. After all, we cannot come with a fixed recipe and say that
‘you as an ambassador should do this and you as a host organization should do that’, it just
does not work like that.” As such, given the high degree of autonomy of the member
organizations, the member space is heavily dependent on what each member decides to bring
to the table. It also has a component of status as defined by e.g., membership labels or size of
contributions in the form of in-kind resources, number of activities involved in or monetary
contributions, which gives the member organizations different positions to act from which
influence their relationships with the overall collaboration as well as the other member

8
 Running head: ‘In-between spaces’ for collaborative innovation

organizations. In that sense, the interactions creating the member space can be characterized as
highly positional.

Learning Space
We observed that some members go beyond merely relating to each other as members of the
same collaboration by interacting with the objective to share knowledge and ideas. In doing so
these selected members are establishing a learning space. In the learning space members are
relating to each other as peers with a mutual commitment to knowledge sharing around their
shared area of interest. The following fieldnote from one of the workshops illustrates the
learning space created from interaction between members in Sustainable Mobility: Johnny asks
whether it would be possible to test automated buses on the empty land during the next few
years before it is developed. Jen doesn’t know but writes it down in her book as something to
find out from her new colleagues. Johnny suggests that this might even connect to TelCo’s
interests when they join Sustainable Mobility. Becky talks about keeping the plans a little open
to maintain the potential to be able to drive cars in the area, even though the intention is to
design the area so that most residents and commuters will choose public transport. Having
been quiet up until now, Neil comments to Jen: “I don’t know your world at all, but I’m
fascinated”. He says he has a lot of questions for her. Representing TechUni, he starts by asking
Jen about how researchers could contribute to development of the neighborhood. In this space,
participants are able to share learning emerging from the project activities carried out in the
delivery space, as well as learn about the priorities of other member organizations. All three
cases include formal activities such as seminars, and workshops, but also less formalized
meetings where the interaction is part in shaping the learning space. Members act voluntary as
they share knowledge and learn, making the learning space less regulated. The learning space
can thus be considered a space of capacity building, where the member organizations can talk
about the vision and goals for the collaboration and form a collective playing field which allows
for shaping and organizing joint practices. Individuals engage in peer conversations that are
based on commitment to the joint goal as Karen, a coordinating team member of Ocean West
exemplified by stating: ”It is about trust and believing that you are working jointly and sharing,
and that we are doing this together, this feeling that we are doing this together is essential for
building that trust. […] We have a lot of meetings of course, and in meetings this trust is built
through discussions and such things, and we also have outward-oriented activities for the
stakeholders of the sub-cluster.” In that sense, the interactions creating the learning space can
be characterized as transformational, in the sense that participants are building trust in each
other, learning together, and through this process becoming something ‘other’ than they were
before.

Delivery Space
We observed that some members interact around specific interests and needs to share resources
to reach expected outcomes e.g., by making decisions about conducting specific activities
together e.g., in the form of projects. This interaction is generating a delivery space. In the
delivery space members demonstrate their commitment to not only talk but to act towards the
collective goal and purpose. Hank from ChemCo a member in FutureChem gives a description
“Previously, it [FutureChem] was more of an interest group which had a small membership fee,
but it did not finance much and thus it was more about meeting and networking. This is still an
important value, but it took networking to a whole new level when there was also a bag of
money. Not to finance huge efforts but to finance concept and feasibility studies where the
network is an important base.” Thus, the delivery space clearly brings in tangible expectations
and outcomes in the form of agreements and deliverables, making it more of a transaction zone.
The roles and rules of members in the delivery space are regulated by contracts formed by the
members in each specific activity initiated to progress joint work to completion and deliver

9
 Running head: ‘In-between spaces’ for collaborative innovation

needed outcomes, which also characterizes the social order established as individuals form roles
through negotiations around expectations and deliverables. Other members do not have power
to dictate how relationships or activities aiming for delivering results are carried out. However,
the emergence of a delivery space takes an effort, as elaborated by Steve, a coordinating
committee member from Ocean West: ”To get all these [sub clusters] to go from, so to say,
formulating their goals, their strategies, to set up different projects leading to concrete results…
some have started […] but far from all of them. We are still doing quite a lot of talking but we
have not started doing that much work and that is probably the challenge.” As a result,
interactions creating the delivery space can be characterized as transactional.

Delineating Boundaries of the Three Spaces

Having outlined the three spaces and the interactions creating them, we sought to further clarify
the spaces by outlining the boundaries of each space, building on Bucher and Langley (2016)
profiling four types of boundaries: social (who is included in the interaction), physical (location
of the interaction in relation to the space in-between), temporal (duration and recurrence of
interactions over time), and symbolic (indicating markers or labels determining which
interaction belongs in which space). By analyzing the material and accounts related to each
space, we arrived at the distinctions depicted in Table 5, which further enhances our
understanding of the three spaces and what defines their boundaries.

- INSERT TABLE 5 HERE -

In terms of the social boundaries, the member space is the most inclusive, as this involves all
members taking part in the collaboration. The learning space does not necessarily involve all
members as this is based on voluntary commitments, and the delivery space is defined by the
partners included in each contractual arrangement e.g., projects, making it even more selective.

Concerning the physical boundaries related to where the interaction is taking place, we could
note that both the member space and the delivery space resides partly within the collaboration
and partly in the member organization. This because it is part of the member organizations that
have responsibilities and involvement to e.g., uphold membership or honor commitments made
in the delivery space. However, the learning space stands out as involving interactions primarily
within the collaboration, involving a selection of individuals in peer-learning.

In terms of the temporal boundaries, this is fundamental to the member space as its whole
existence is based on the start and potential end of the collaboration. For the learning space and
the delivery space, the temporal boundaries are more temporary or emergent, defined by
specific learning occasions or initiation of communities, or the contractual time frame of joint
projects.

Finally, the symbolic boundaries, indicating different markers to place interactions in different
spaces, the member space stands out as e.g., labels of types of member or types of partner is
fundamental to the collaboration. For the learning space and delivery space, distinction of
markers is possible, but not fundamental in the same way as for the member space, e.g., in terms
of naming of events and communities, or types of documents and reports produced.

DISCUSSION
An analysis of the social interactions and relationships in the collaborations enabled us to
identify three spaces: the member space, the learning space, and the delivery space. We show
that the collaborative relationships in respective space vary in terms of objectives, roles, rules,

10
 Running head: ‘In-between spaces’ for collaborative innovation

responsibilities, and resources indicating that there are distinct qualitative differences between
the spaces. We also found that social, physical, temporal, and symbolic boundaries of the three
spaces varied, which further clarified the distinction between them.

Interrelated Spaces Constituting Space In-between

The starting point of the current study was that spaces are social products, each with their own
spatial practice (Lefebvre, 1991). Hence, social interaction creates space and space creates
action and interaction. Our study illustrate that contrasts and contradictions between different
societal or personal interests and perspectives can be enacted in in-between spaces (Fritzsche,
2018), however how, around what and in relation to whom these are enacted differs between
the member space, learning space and the delivery space. Members are using multiple sets of
traditions, practices, norms, and values, but choose when to use them and thus produced
different in-between spaces each with their own spatial practices (Bhabha, 1996; Lamont &
Molnár, 2002).

The member space is created by the collaborative relationships between all members and their
interaction in accordance with their intentions while following structures and routines for their
membership types. Interactions are mainly positional, yet the member space provides a space
not bound by history and thereby “permitting” collective identity creation within the
collaboration. It could be argued that there is in fact no real collaboration in the member space
as there is no struggling with differences through negotiation, trust-building, and consensus-
building (Gray & Purdy, 2018; Oliver et al., 2020; Phillips et al., 2000), and therefore a
collaboration constituted merely by a member space is not going to generate innovation.

The learning space is created by the collaborative relationships between voluntary members
interacting temporarily as peers when engaging in knowledge sharing and learning. Such
occasional and informal interaction creates a space closely related to what is also referred to as
an interstitial space (Furnari, 2014), allowing members to leave identities restricting their
openness and enter those permitting knowledge sharing. Engaging in play and exploration also
creates a transitional space (Trist et al., 2016; Winnicott, 1971/2005) cultivating members’ trust
in each other. Accordingly, the learning space can be argued as fundamental for bridging
organizational boundaries as well as generating and strengthening the collaboration (Gray &
Purdy, 2018; Oliver et al., 2020; Phillips et al., 2000), which is needed to access the knowledge
of the network (Powell et al., 1996).

The delivery space is created by the collaborative relationships between members who share
resources to generate specific results and outcomes. This interaction is transactional and in
accordance with agreed upon rules, which creates a space embracing structure and order and
yet, like a third space (Bhabha, 2012), represents both the general and the local conditions in
the performative strategy enacted. It can be argued that the delivery space is crucial for
collaborative innovation as it is in this space collaborators co-create solutions to problems
(Agogué et al., 2013; Dougherty, 2017; Gray & Purdy, 2018).

The theoretical conceptualizations and definitions of spaces proposed in this study contribute
towards a framework of spaces in in-between space adding to the early-stage theorizing around
spaces in-between building on e.g., Ollila and Yström (2020). Specifically, the study elucidates
the plurality of collaborative relationships and interactions creating space and thereby
contributing to further conceptualizing the emergent processes often characterizing
unstructured collaborative contexts (see e.g., Gray & Purdy, 2018; Oliver et al., 2020; Phillips
et al., 2000; Vangen, 2017) expected to generate collaborative innovation.

11
 Running head: ‘In-between spaces’ for collaborative innovation

An Emergent Process Model of Mutually Informing Spaces

While set apart by differences in collaborative relationships, the spaces constituting in-between
space appear to be interrelated and can inform each other, (c.f., Bucher and Langley (2016)).
Our study indicates that the interaction and continuous negotiation between members in the in-
between space inform other spaces and generate movements (see Figure 2). While the model
strives to explicate such movements in a simplified sense for analytical purposes, the reality of
collaborating is perhaps not so straightforward, complicated by e.g., conflicting logics,
competition for resources, multiple organizational layers, and loyalty conflicts. Thus, the
process model should not be interpreted as a causal model, but rather indicate how patterns of
movements (interactions and negotiations) contribute to the forming of different spaces, where
continuous negotiations and additional micro-level dynamics characterize each movement.
Each interaction is a prerequisite but not a guarantee for the emergence of the corresponding
space, as there might be other latent tensions and conflicts that can be disruptive (Ollila &
Yström, 2024).

From our interaction with Sustainable Mobility, we learnt about balancing learning and delivery
spaces as they experienced that participants were more interested in engaging in sharing
knowledge than launching projects to deliver tangible results necessary for the collaboration to
reach its goals. Future Chem, on the other hand, illustrated how challenging it can be to invite
members to share knowledge and ideas pivotal for generating learning space, when they are
actively involved in projects and solely focus on the value created for their organization. Ocean
West found it difficult to move beyond the members space into either learning or delivery
spaces, as many of the participants were content with the affiliation to the collaboration and did
not have an interest in knowledge sharing or joint projects.

- INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE -

Positional conversations and interaction between some members in the members space can
develop into explorative interaction such as sharing experiences and exploring ideas, which
creates a temporal learning space enhancing transformational interactions and positioning of
each other as peers (arrow 1 in Fig. 2). Some members may actively seek out other members,
engaging them in negotiating interaction to start joint activities to achieve intended results,
which informs a delivery space boosting transactional interactions to ensure the delivery of
planned outcomes (arrow 2 in Fig. 2). With continuous transformational interaction in a
learning space some members might engage in reflective interaction on which existing or
potential new members can contribute with complementary knowledge and improve learning.
Such reflective interaction informs a member space enhancing positional interaction focusing
on e.g., the portfolio of members (arrow 3 in Fig. 2). Or some members might start to engage
in mindful interaction and formalize the exploration of specific ideas, which leads to
transactional interaction informing a delivery space (arrow 4 in Fig. 2). With continuous
transactional interaction in a delivery space some members might engage in reflective
interaction on which existing or potential new members are needed to contribute to achieving
deliverables. Such reflective interaction informs a member space enhancing positional
interaction focusing on e.g., the portfolio of members (arrow 5 in Fig. 2). Or with continuous
transactional interaction in a delivery space, some members might engage in reflective
interaction to extract learning from what has been accomplished informing a learning space
boosting transformational interaction needed for joint learning (arrow 6 in Fig. 2).

12
 Running head: ‘In-between spaces’ for collaborative innovation

Sustaining In-between Spaces for Collaborative Innovation

The process model depicts the evolving process (Stephenson et al., 2020) of the relational
spaces and how they are informing each other through continuous interaction and negotiation.
In line with Stephenson et al. (2020) and Phillips et al. (2000), the relational spaces are not
predefined or always given in inter-organizational collaboration, as our study shows that
interaction and negotiation are required for the space to emerge and sustain. This suggests a
certain fragility in forming and sustaining in-between spaces, complicated by the multitude of
interests that shape the collaboration, posing specific challenges for managers or coordinators
(Ollila & Yström, 2024). Arguably, the absence of some spaces may indeed impact the potential
to generate expected value in and from the collaboration, e.g., if the learning space is absent,
the knowledge sharing and learning essential to collaborative innovation will suffer, or if the
delivery space is absent, the tangible outcomes will be lacking, risking the collaboration to end
up in a state of collaborative inertia. Thus, explicating the dynamics in in-between spaces
further explains why inter-organizational collaborations often fail to deliver (Gray & Wood,
1991; Hardy et al., 1998; Huxham & Vangen, 2004).

The forming of spaces mirrors not only the purpose of the collaboration but also the phase and
level of maturity of the collaboration. As shown, a variety of assumptions about what
participation will entail (Husted & Michailova, 2010) shape the collaboration and these
assumptions may change over time. E.g., in a dynamic collaboration with a high turnover of
members, there is a clear risk that perpetual positioning and re-positioning between newer and
older members may hamper the emergence of learning and delivery spaces. Because the
forming of spaces is interaction-dependent, actors can sometimes also be noted to intentionally
or strategically seek to enforce a particular space (Ollila & Yström, 2024), making that space
more dominant. This suggests that although an in-between space may indeed be comprised of
all the three types of spaces, they are not necessarily equally balanced or prominent, but rather
dependent on the interests of the actors involved. If all spaces are considered essential to the
collaboration, sustained interaction to create them is needed. But as collaborations are
inherently dynamic, the temporal and contingent components of in-between spaces need to be
considered to achieve fruitful collaborative innovation.

CONCLUSIONS
By addressing how in-between spaces can be understood through collaborative relationships,
we showed how three types of spaces emerge, characterized through qualitatively distinct
collaborative relationships. We explained how the member space, learning space and delivery
space are defined through social, physical, temporal, and symbolic boundaries and proposed an
emergent process model of how the spaces are interrelated and inform each other, thereby
collectively constituting in-between spaces. Furthermore, we problematized the challenges of
sustaining the three spaces over time, given the inherent tensions built into inter-organizational
collaboration. Our study contributes to the resurging exploration of ‘spaces’ in organization and
innovation research (Beyes & Steyaert, 2012; Bradbury & Bergmann Lichtenstein, 2000;
Bucher & Langley, 2016; Furnari, 2014; Shortt, 2015), by elaborating on the interactions and
plurality of collaborative relationships creating space (Ollila & Yström, 2020; Yström &
Agogué, 2020) building further on the dynamic and emergent processes characterizing inter-
organizational collaboration for innovation (see e.g., Gray & Purdy, 2018; Oliver et al., 2020;
Phillips et al., 2000; Vangen, 2017).

13
 Running head: ‘In-between spaces’ for collaborative innovation

Managerial Implications
This study invites managers and practitioners in in-between spaces to reflect on the implications
of entering new collaborative relationships bridging organizational boundaries to co-create
value with others. Three specific points are highlighted here for managerial consideration.
• As a manager, it is important to be mindful of the interrelated yet distinct spaces in in-
between spaces and anticipating the respective consequences of various spatial
practices, values, and norms of the collaboration. This also implies recognizing that not
all participants may know of or desire to contribute to all spaces. Managerial attention
is advised to understand the interactions within the collaboration at any given time,
grounded in recurring dialogues with participants about perceptions of purpose and
value in the collaboration, as well as their ambitions and desire to engage with the other
participants.
• Following this, managers need to be aware of both latent and overt tensions that may
exist between the different spaces and the potential power play integrated in the
interaction generating them, e.g. related to conflicting logics, competition for resources
and attention, organizational complexity and loyalty and identity conflicts. While
resolving such tensions may not be possible, finding ways of not letting them cause
collaborative inertia is vital. Addressing such perceived tensions openly at both
operative or strategic levels can help clarifying expectations and identifying paths
forward, or strengthening the voice of less powerful participants to get a more balanced
interaction.
• Finally, managers can take a more active role to support and legitimize the emergence
of preferred spaces, by ensuring activities promoting the desired interactions. However,
this is a delicate balancing act as forced interactions may not be an option, requiring
insights to inform managerial actions. As an “in-between manager”, being tasked to
navigate this collaborative space from a position of limited authority and with scarce
resources, requires developing a new repertoire of managerial practices, not grounded
in traditional hierarchical authority but rather reliant on a relational power base.

Limitations and Future Research

The limited sample of illustrative cases in a specific context and the particular lens of spaces
chosen in this study can be considered a limitation, as it cannot claim to offer an exhaustive
understanding of what transpires in in-between spaces. We do not elaborate on specific
behaviors of member organizations, in- or outside of the collaboration, which may have an
impact on shaping the interaction and emergence of in-between spaces. Industry dynamics,
policy regulations, local cultural norms or prior experience of collaboration may all be
examples of aspects that potentially inform member organizations as they engage in spaces in-
between. Understanding such underlying, fundamental drivers (or barriers) of member
organization’s actions could be addressed in future research to better understand motivations
and realizations of expectations in spaces in-between.

Additionally, future research could investigate the emergence and change of specific spaces, as
noted by e.g., Bucher et al. (2016) focused on how, why and under which circumstances the
identified spaces emerge.

REFERENCES
Agogué, M., Yström, A., & Le Masson, P. (2013). Rethinking the role of intermediaries as an
architect of collective exploration and creation of knowledge in open innovation.
International Journal of Innovation Management, 17(2), 1350007-.

14
 Running head: ‘In-between spaces’ for collaborative innovation

Alvesson, M., Lee Ashcraft, K., & Thomas, R. (2008). Identity matters: Reflections on the
construction of identity scholarship in organization studies. Organization, 15(1), 5-28.
Beyes, T., & Steyaert, C. (2012). Spacing organization: Non-representational theory and
performing organizational space. Organization, 19(1), 45-61.
Bhabha, H. K. (1996). Cultures In-Between. In S. Hall & P. du Gay (Eds.), Questions of
Cultural Identity. Sage Publications.
Bhabha, H. K. (2012). The location of culture. Routledge.
Bradbury, H., & Bergmann Lichtenstein, B. M. (2000). Relationality in organizational research:
Exploring the space between. Organization Science, 11(5), 551-564.
Buchanan, D. A., & Denyer, D. (2013). Researching tomorrow's crisis: methodological
innovations and wider implications. International Journal of Management Reviews,
15(2), 205-224.
Bucher, S., & Langley, A. (2016). The interplay of reflective and experimental spaces in
interrupting and reorienting routine dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 594-613.
Bucher, S. V., Chreim, S., Langley, A., & Reay, T. (2016). Contestation about collaboration:
Discursive boundary work among professions. Organization Studies, 37(4), 497-522.
Cartel, M., Boxenbaum, E., & Aggeri, F. (2019). Just for fun! How experimental spaces
stimulate innovation in institutionalized fields. Organization Studies, 40(1), 65-92.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage.
Coghlan, D., & Coughlan, P. (2015). Effecting change and learning in networks through
network action learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51(3), 375-400.
Coghlan, D., & Shani, A. B. R. (2014). Creating action learning quality in organization
development: Rigorous, reflective and relevant. Systemic Practice and Action
Research(27), 523-536.
Daskalaki, M., Butler, C. L., & Petrovic, J. (2016). Somewhere in-between: Narratives of place,
identity, and translocal work. Journal of Management Inquiry, 25(2), 184-198.
Dougherty, D. (2017). Organizing for innovation in complex innovation systems. Innovation.
https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2016.1245109
Eden, C., & Huxham, C. (1996). Action research for management research. British Journal of
Management, 7(1), 75-86.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management
review, Vol. 14(4), 532-550.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and
challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32.
Fritzsche, A. (2018). Corporate foresight in open laboratories–a translational approach.
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 30(6), 646-657.
Furnari, S. (2014). Interstitial spaces: Microinteraction settings and the genesis of new practices
between institutional fields. Academy of Management review, 39(4), 439-462.
Grandadam, D., Cohendet, P., & Simon, L. (2013). Places, spaces and the dynamics of
creativity: The video game industry in Montreal. Regional Studies, 47(10), 1701-1714.
Gray, B., & Purdy, J. (2018). Collaborating for our future: Multistakeholder partnerships for
solving complex problems. Oxford University Press.
Gray, B., & Wood, D. J. (1991). Collaborative alliances: Moving from practice to theory. The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(1), 3-22.
Hardy, C., Lawrence, T., & Phillips, N. (1998). Talking action: Conversations, narrative and
action in interorganizational collaboration. In D. Grant, T. Keenoy, & C. Oswick (Eds.),
Discourse and Organization (pp. 65-83). Sage.
Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B., & Grant, D. (2005). Discourse and collaboration: The role of
conversations and collective identity. Academy of Management review, 30(1), 58-77.
Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2010). Discourse, field-configuring events, and change in
organizations and institutional fields: Narratives of DDT and the Stockholm
Convention. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1365-1392.

15
 Running head: ‘In-between spaces’ for collaborative innovation

Husted, K., & Michailova, S. (2010). Dual allegiance and knowledge sharing in inter-firm R&D
collaborations. Organizational Dynamics, 39(1), 37.
Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2004). Doing things collaboratively - realizing the advantage or
succumbing to inertia? Organizational Dynamics, 33(2), 190-201.
Kellogg, K. C. (2009). Operating room: Relational spaces and microinstitutional change in
surgery. American Journal of Sociology, 115(3), 657-711.
Kornberger, M., & Clegg, S. R. (2004). Bringing space back in: Organizing the generative
building. Organization Studies, 25(7), 1095-1114.
Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual
review of sociology, 28(1), 167-195.
Langley, A. (2007). Process thinking in strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5(3),
271-282.
Lee, M. Y., Mazmanian, M., & Perlow, L. (2020). Fostering positive relational dynamics: The
power of spaces and interaction scripts. Academy of Management Journal, 63(1), 96-
123.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (Vol. 142). Oxford Blackwell.
Marquardt, M. J., Banks, S., Cauwelier, P., & Seng, N. C. (2018). Optimizing the power of
action learning: Real-time strategies for developing leaders, building teams and
transforming organizations. Hachette UK.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Oliver, A. L., Montgomery, K., & Barda, S. (2020). The multi-level process of trust and
learning in university–industry innovation collaborations. The Journal of Technology
Transfer, 45(3), 758-779.
Ollila, S., & Elmquist, M. (2011). Managing Open Innovation: Exploring Challenges at the
Interfaces of an Open Innovation Arena. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20(4),
273-283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2011.00616.x
Ollila, S., & Yström, A. (2020). Open Laboratories as “In-between Spaces”. In A. Fritzsche, J.
M. Jonas, A. Roth, & K. M. Möslein (Eds.), Innovating in the Open Lab: The new
potential for interactive value creation across organizational boundaries (pp. 203-212).
De Gruyter.
Ollila, S., & Yström, A. (2024). Political behavior in collaborative innovation spaces: Outlining
triggers, behaviors and shaping mechanisms. R&D Management, 54(2), 261-282.
Ometto, M. P., Gegenhuber, T., Winter, J., & Greenwood, R. (2019). From balancing missions
to mission drift: The role of the institutional context, spaces, and compartmentalization
in the scaling of social enterprises. Business & Society, 58(5), 1003-1046.
Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly,
25(1), 129-141.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and
practice. Sage publications.
Perkmann, M., McKelvey, M., & Phillips, N. (2019). Protecting scientists from Gordon Gekko:
How organizations use hybrid spaces to engage with multiple institutional logics.
Organization Science, 30(2), 298-318.
Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. (2000). Inter‐organizational collaboration and the
dynamics of institutional fields. Journal of Management Studies, 37(1), 23-43.
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational Collaboration and
the Locus of innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 41, 116-145.
Shortt, H. (2015). Liminality, space and the importance of ‘transitory dwelling places’ at work.
Human Relations, 68(4), 633-658. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726714536938
Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1),
20-24.

16
 Running head: ‘In-between spaces’ for collaborative innovation

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.

Stake, R. E. (2013). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford press.
Stephenson, K. A., Kuismin, A., Putnam, L. L., & Sivunen, A. (2020). Process studies of
organizational space. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 797-827.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques, 3rd ed. Sage Publications Ltd.
Sydow, J. (2004). Towards a Spatial Turn in Organization Science?–A Long Wait. Contribution
to the online-discussion forum SECONS. .
https://doi.org/https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1605173
Trist, E., Murray, H., & Trist, B. (2016). The Social Engagement of Social Science, a Tavistock
Anthology, Volume 1: The Socio-Psychological Perspective (Vol. 1). University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Turner, V. (1977). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Transaction Publishers.
Van Gennep, A. (2019). The rites of passage. University of Chicago press.
Vangen, S. (2017). Developing practice‐oriented theory on collaboration: A paradox lens.
Public Administration Review, 77(2), 263-272.
Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2011). The tangled web: Unraveling the principle of common goals
in collaborations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(4), 731-
760.
Vásquez, C., & Cooren, F. (2013). Spacing practices: The communicative configuration of
organizing through space-times. Communication theory, 23(1), 25-47.
Weinfurtner, T., & Seidl, D. (2019). Towards a spatial perspective: An integrative review of
research on organisational space. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 35(2), 101009.
Wilner, A., Christopoulos, T. P., & Alves, M. A. (2017). The online unmanaged organization:
control and resistance in a space with blurred boundaries. Journal of Business Ethics,
141, 677-691.
Winnicott, D. W. (1971/2005). Playing and Reality. Routledge.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research. Sage Publications, Inc.
Yström, A., & Agogué, M. (2020). Exploring practices in collaborative innovation: Unpacking
dynamics, relations, and enactment in in‐between spaces. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 29(1), 141-145.
Yström, A., Ollila, S., Agogué, M., & Coghlan, D. (2019). The Role of a Learning Approach
in Building an Interorganizational Network Aiming for Collaborative Innovation.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 55(1), 27-49.
Zietsma, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2010). Institutional work in the transformation of an
organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 55(2), 189-221.

17
 Running head: ‘In-between spaces’ for collaborative innovation

Tables and figures

Table 1 Details of cases and research context

Case: Sustainable Mobility Case: FutureChem Case: Ocean West

Collaboration Sustainable and electrified travel Production of chemicals, Innovation, environmentally

purpose and transport for the urban materials, and fuels based on compatible solutions, and
development of the future. renewable and recycled raw sustainable growth in the
materials for a fossil-free region. maritime sector.

Type of Triple-helix collaboration Triple-helix collaboration Triple-helix collaboration

collaboration (academia, industry, and (academia, industry, and (academia, industry, and
government) government) government)
Starting year 2013 - ongoing 2016 - ongoing 2012 - ongoing

No of member 15 members (2017) 49 members (2022) 28 members (2018)

organizations

Type of Public funding and in-kind from Public funding and membership Public funding and in-kind
financing members fee from core members from members

Type of Networking activities such as Network activities such as Network activities such as
activities member meetings, seminars, and seminars, workshops, seminars, workshops,
conferences. Projects and tests in conferences, dialogue meetings. conferences, dialogue
the demo arena. pre-study projects meetings. Joint research
applications and cross-
disciplinary projects.
Management Steering group (representatives Steering group (management Six sub clusters (different
from six members) organized by team and representatives from focus areas)
orchestrators and chaired by paying members) organized by with an overarching
selected member, 2 orchestrators, coordinators and chaired by coordinating committee and
coordinator group (project selected member, 2 coordinators, coordinating team (3 persons,
managers from 4 to 6 members, management team (2 2 from universities and 1
orchestrators chair and represent coordinators, 4 intervention area from regional government).
the other members) leaders) lead by coordinators Each sub cluster has a host
organization and
2 ambassadors; 1 from
academia and 1 from
industry

Table 2 Details of data collection

Sustainable Mobility Future Chem Ocean West

Period of data 2017 2021–2022 2013–2014

collection

Form of data - 5 semi-structured interviews - 14 semi-structured interviews - 18 semi- structured interviews

collection with members with members with members
- 10 extended conversations - 20 extended conversations - 2 extended conversations with
with orchestrators with coordinators coordinator team

Action learning Active participation at 1 Active participation at 2 Active participation at 2

activities seminar and 2 workshops seminars and 2 workshops seminars and 1 conference

18
 Running head: ‘In-between spaces’ for collaborative innovation

Table 3 Details of action learning processes

Sustainable Mobility Future Chem Ocean West

Activity Workshop Seminar Workshop Seminar Seminar Workshop Workshop Seminar Conference Seminar
Topic Depicting and An illustration Organigraph of the Inter- Inter- Interaction Strategies to Inventory of Learnings Collaborative
sensemaking the of the collaboration organizational organizational canvas - a tool engage current state from sub- challenges
collaboration collaboration collaboration and collaboration and for deeper participants in of the cluster on hindering
and how it is value creation value creation analysis of how interaction collaboration collaborative engagement
organized and about what leading to practices and joint value
participants learning creation
engage
Participants Orchestrators Steering group Orchestrators and Coordinators and Representatives of Coordinators Coordinators Coordinator Cluster Coordinator
steering group topic leaders the member and topic and topic and sub- members and sub-
chair organizations leaders leaders cluster cluster
leaders members
Reflecting Critique Critique Reflection on the Discuss and Discuss and reflect Discuss and Discuss Discuss and Information Discussion on
process towards the towards the importance of all reflect on results on results from reflect on strategies for reflect on and identified
current suggestion since members to be from interviews interviews with current how to engage collaborative possibility to challenges in
illustration of all member recognized as with representatives of activities and “low activity” activities ask questions creating
the organizing organisations creating value representatives of the member arenas for members in about initial engagement
of the could not see the member organizations and interaction and different type of findings on and joint value
collaboration their organizations suggestion on what is lacking interaction challenges creation
participation, actions
discussion, and
suggestions for
improvement
Action A new Continue Communication First draft of Revised strategy Topic leaders’ Topic leaders to Setting the Legitimizing Coordinator to
suggestion for working on the material including strategy to engage analysis of all book meetings focus for in- drafting use insights to
how to depict illustration to the organigraph participants more members with a few depth proposals for adjust
the capture to reach results engagement in selected investigation, changes in the collaboration’s
collaboration activities to projects, “critical” creating organizational setup
create value network events, members awareness of setup
done by all and seminars potential
members challenges to
address, and
a need for
change

19
 Running head: ‘In-between spaces’ for collaborative innovation

Table 4 Defining dimensions of collaborative relationships in three spaces

Dimensions of collaborative relationships creating space

Objective Roles Rules Responsibilities

of the relationship of the members in the of the relationship of the members in the
relationship relationship
Member space Members associate Members act in Members act in Members decide how
Positional with the joint vision accordance with their accordance with the to resource and
interactions and other members form of memberships rules of their form of manage their own
memberships participation
Learning space Members share Members relate as Members act Members are
Transformational knowledge and ideas. peers voluntary and self- committed to sharing
interactions regulated knowledge through
participation in
activities
Delivery space Members share Members form roles Members agree upon Members drive the
Transactional resources to generate through formal rules that apply in activities to reach
interactions specific results contracts specific activities agreed upon
outcomes

Table 5 Explicating the boundaries of the three spaces

Defining boundaries Member space Learning space Delivery space

Social Including all members Including voluntary members Including contractual

(Who is included in the partners
interaction)
Physical Partially in collaboration Within collaboration Partially in collaboration as
(Location of the as well as in member well as in member
interaction in relation to organizations organizations
the space in-between)
Temporal Fundamental/constitutive Temporary/emergent Temporary/emergent (begin
(Duration and of in-between space (begin (community, or specific and end with contracts)
recurrence of and end with the occasions)
interactions over time) collaboration)
Symbolic Distinction fundamental Distinction possible Distinction possible
(Indicating markers or (e.g., interactions invoking (e.g., interactions in topic- (e.g., interactions related to
labels determining which member labels such as specific communities of evaluation and assessment
interaction belongs in membership levels) practice, knowledge sharing of deliverables and
workshops/events) contracts)
which space)

20
 Running head: ‘In-between spaces’ for collaborative innovation

Fig. 1 Data structure

Fig. 2 Three mutually informing spaces

21

View publication stats