This paper examines how video recording practices effect the ways in which an organizational phenomenon -in our case organizational space -becomes available for analysis and understanding. Building on a performative and praxeological approach, we argue that the practical and material ways of conducting video-based research have a performative effect on the object of inquiry and do not simply record it. Focusing in particular on configurations of camera angle and movement -forming what we call the Panoramic View, the American-objective View, the Roving Point-of-view and the Infra-subjective View -we find that these apparatuses privilege different spatial understandings both by orienting our gaze towards different analytical elements and by qualifying these elements in different ways. Our findings advance the methodological reflections on video-based research by emphasizing that while video has a number of general affordances, the research practices with which we use it matter and have an impact both on the analytical process and the researcher's findings.
3Space matters in our efforts of organizing, both as a symbolic and aesthetic carrier of meaning (Hatch, 1990;Van Marrewijk, 2009) and through its material affordances (Dale & Burrell, 2008;de Vaujany & Mitev, 2013). Spatiality sustains identity making processes (Dale & Burrell, 2008;Rosen, 1990), concurs to establish and reinforce power differentials (Dale & Burrell, 2008), and specific spatial arrangements contribute to enhance or inhibit (interdisciplinary) interaction (Hatch, 1990;Iedema, Long, & Carroll, 2010), learning (Beyes & Michels, 2011), creativity (Hillier, 1996), or even safety (Hor, Iedema, & Manias, 2014).While the growing attention to space in organizational studies (for a review, see: Taylor & Spicer, 2007) may be fuelled by practical managerial concerns such as the need for flexible and mobile work arrangements or the blending of home and workspaces (Richardson & McKenna, 2014), it is also informed by the recent material turn in organization studies (de Vaujany & Mitev, 2013;Orlikowski & Scott, 2011). From the latter we learn that space is more than a stable, neutral, physical container (Kornberger & Clegg, 2004) "waiting to be filled" with organizational activities, processes, and artefacts independent from it (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 170).Instead, organizational scholars are coming to realize that spatiality and organizing are tightly entangled (Barad, 2001) as space is both "a social product and a generative force" of practices of organizing (Beyes & Steyaert, 2012, p. 48). Into the production of space go complex processes not only of conceiving, but also of inhabiting and practicing space (Lefebvre, 1991).Flexworkers, for example, have not simply spaces of work or of home, but engage -through their daily practices -in an "ongoing reordering" of these spaces in view of their specific needs (Richardson & McKenna, 2014, p. 734). We are thus asked to reconceptualise space as "spacing" and to account for the practiced, processual, rhythmic, ...