Hackathons as Affective Circuits: Technology, organizationality and affect

Abstract

Technology invites a re-consideration of organization and organizing by calling attention to mediated forms of value production among loose social collectives outside formal organizational boundaries. While the nascent concept of organizationality holds potential for such a re-conceptualization, the processes through which loose social members become invested in co-orientation and collective effort require further empirical and theoretical exploration. In this paper, we link organizationality research with critical media studies on affect and technology to theorize how affect holds provisional collectives together while promoting new modes of value extraction. Empirically, we draw from an ethnographic study of hackathons – transdigital innovation spaces where participants act with and through technology – and suggest three intertwined processes as part of an affective circuit that stokes and directs affect. The paper’s contribution is threefold. First, by analyzing how affective circuits bind, integrate and co-orient action among loose members, we contribute to understanding organizationality as affectively constituted. Second, by showing how hackathons leverage desire for community, we offer a critical perspective on affective capture and argue that organizationality involves novel modes of value production. Third, we complement theorizing of hackathons by exploring them as sites of organizationality, focusing on the provisional, relational and affect-rich nature of new forms of organizing in the digital age.

Openness as Organizing Principle: Introduction to the Special Issue

“…Gathering researchers across the various domains under the same broad theme of ‘openness’ permits the exchange of insights from one domain to another and allows for comparative, collaborative and cumulative research across domains. Moreover, on the basis of a common conceptualization, these conversations and collaborations can more easily extend to other literatures that study similar aspects of organizing with different terms: for example, boundaryless organizations ( Ashkenas, Ulrich, Jick, & Kerr, 2015 ), post-bureaucratic and new organizational forms ( de Vaujany, Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, Munro, Nama, & Holt, 2021 ; Grey & Garsten, 2001 ), organizationality ( Endrissat & Islam, 2022 ; Schoeneborn, Kuhn & Kärreman, 2019 ), stakeholder engagement ( Kujala, Sachs, Leinonen, Heikkinen, & Laude, 2022 ), or participative governance ( Scherer & Voegtlin, 2020 ). Developing a general conceptualization of openness thus has the capacity to embrace many related phenomena investigated under a wide range of labels.…”

Orchestrating Open Innovation through Punctuated Openness: A process model of open organizing for tackling wicked multi-stakeholder problems

“…Although we also observed such attempts at SOO, the changing involvement of stakeholders precluded time for trust-building interactions required for mutual (re)alignment. Authoritative closures can be helpful in this regard as they can alleviate the tensions between individual goals and shared objectives (O'Mahony & Ferraro, 2007), and direct their efforts towards shared goals even when time is scarce (Endrissat & Islam, 2021) while reducing inertia due to a lack of social, cognitive, and organizational proximity between participants (Ooms & Piepenbrink, 2021). Therefore, authoritative closures-e.g.…”

Digital Curation and Creative Brokering: Managing information overload in open organizing

“…The paper also contributes to an emergent stream of research which illuminates the importance of attending to emotions in open organizing (Endrissat & Islam, 2021). Studies have pointed to individuals’ emotional fatigue and frustration in the face of overwhelming information, and alienation when their ideas are not advanced through the process (Bjelland & Wood, 2008; Luedicke et al, 2017; Ripken, 2006).…”