This article is based on the outcomes of the research project on changes in everyday life during the pandemic, conducted at the beginning of lockdown in Poland with the use of CAWI questionnaire. We focus on results related to defining the positive aspects (PA) of the pandemic, describe the kinds of PA noticed by the respondents, categorise the identified PA (by values, concepts of order, and social change they referred), and analyse how sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents differentiate the responses. We argue that the perceived PA were directed towards individual rather than the general social well-being, that they express hope for maintaining rather than transforming the status quo, and that the nature of recognised PA is more defensive than progressive. Contrary to our initial assumptions, statistical analyses also suggest that the PA perception does not correlate with respondents' socio-demographic characteristics as strongly as expected, which allows for an assumption that other, more situational and personality traits factors also influence the researched phenomenon.

This paper discusses a research project that attempted to examine selected public institutions' response strategies to a pandemic. The most important research question of the project was the relationship between the pandemic and innovativeness of the sector of public institutions (understood as the desire to introduce new ways of operating, new inter-institutional links, new patterns of relations with stakeholders, etc., resulting from the knowledge provided to individual institutions by functioning under the conditions of the pandemic). During qualitative research we found that the researched institutions' predominant reaction to the challenges of the pandemic was not an orientation towards innovation but a striving to maintain a mode of functioning that is as similar as possible to that from before the pandemic. The innovations made (transition to remote working, simplification of some administrative procedures) resulted from external pressure to a greater extent and internal reflexivity to a lesser extent. The narratives captured in the study about the everyday life of public institutions during the pandemic have three common elements. First, they all focus less on large and spectacular innovations and more on micro-innovations (not treated as innovation, but understood as dozens of micro-improvements, minimal adjustments to existing routines). Second, they all miniaturize the experience of the pandemic, regarding it as events so extreme as to be useless for designing a better institutional order. Thirdly, all the reconstructed narratives are situated in an institutional zone of in-between, which means that they perceive themselves as a transparent medium fluctuating between the state and society and as a subject without influence on the shape of its own functioning. On the one hand, this would depend on the level of civic culture and, on the other hand, on the policy created at the highest levels of the state.

In this paper, we use qualitative research data to explore the phenomenon of the boundaryless work-life interface during the COVID-19 pandemic as perceived by working parents. We define a boundaryless work-life interface as the weak or virtually absent boundary between work and life domains. We look closer at the relations between space, time, emotions, roles and the boundaryless work-life interface among working parents. The first two subsections introduce the linkages between the boundaryless work-life interface, focusing primarily on time and space in what we call ‘collapsed role boundaries’. The second subsection examines the issues related to mental and emotional tensions the perceived boundarylesness has caused during the pandemic. The paper’s final subsection provides a summary with interpretations and conclusions.

In this study, the authors use data from qualitative research to examine the phenomenon of pandemic rage in everyday life. They define pandemic rage as an emotional reaction to feelings of anger, frustration and helplessness resulting from the conviction that fundamental rules have been violated during a pandemic, which is perceived (by the person experiencing pandemic rage) as provocation, impertinence, insolence, and crossing boundaries. The article takes a closer look at the relations between space, normative order, behaviours and pandemic rage. It first introduces the linkages between the occurrence of pandemic rage and the experience of spatial compression in the private and public spheres, situations of feeling ‘condensed’ and ‘condemned’ in the presence of others, and proxemic disturbances. Then the article discusses endogenous and exogenous catalysts of pandemic rage. The last section provides a summary with interpretations and conclusions.

Celem tekstu jest podjęcie tematu pracy wokół granic (boundary work) czy zarządzania granicami (boundary management) z uwzględnieniem trybu zatrudnienia oraz statusu rodzinnego badanych osób. Proponowana perspektywa krytycznie podchodzi do dominujących koncepcji work-life-balance, podkreślając dynamiczny i niekończący się proces wzajemnych oddziaływań, w ramach którego granice między pracą a życiem codziennym i rodziną są na co dzień przez jednostki wytwarzane, podtrzymywane, negocjowane oraz przekraczane. Odwołując się metodologii badań jakościowych, chcemy zobaczyć, jak respondenci rozumieją i definiują obszary graniczne oraz jak wygląda proces codziennego zarządzania granicami w zależności od trybu pracy. W tekście dyskutujemy realizowane strategie zarządzania granicami: strategię racjonalnego regulowania granicy i różne strategie kontestowania i zacierania granicy przez badane osoby.