Studies on the relationships between spaces and organisational behaviour have recently become richer, considering, for example, materiality, identity, aesthetics, control, reciprocal constitution – up to what is called a turn towards spatiality. However, today, on the one hand, spaces, places and borders are being drastically redefined (e.g. with flex-office, aesthetisation, third places, migrations, multiple reterritorialisations) and on the other hand, the theorisations of organisational space are convening new authors and new concepts (e.g. spacing, throwntogetherness, dispositif, geophilosophy...). In this special issue we propose to follow Beyes & Holt's (2020) invitation to take space seriously and to think spatially: to recognise that all organisations and actors are emplaced or desire a place, that innumerable boundaries are formed and contested, that territories are traversed by atmospheres and affects; and to welcome research and reflections inspired by and addressing this new spatial condition of organisations. Hence this issue calls for all forms of contributions that seek to better understand the links between new spatial organisations and organisational behaviour and to reflect on the new issues, imaginaries, devices, boundaries, subjectivities and controls that are taking shape and reforming the life of and in organisations.

It has long been recognised that the organisation of space has an effect on organisational behaviour, particularly on efficiency and creativity. This link is now thought of in a more complex way: organisations are thought of as material arrangements in space (De Vaujany, 2015; De Vaujany & Mitev, 2013); behaviours do not just take place in but are also constitutive of work-spaces and places (Kornberger & Clegg, 2004; Clegg & Kornberger, 2006,); space does influence values, identities, commitments, etc. (Dale & Burrel, 2008); it affects meaning, autonomy, taste for work (Strati, 2004); it disciplines or stimulates (Taskin & Raone, 2014). Organisational theory, after geography and history (Withers, 2013) and social sciences in general (Blank & Rosen Zvi, 2010), is experiencing its turn towards spatiality (van Marrewijk & Yanow, 2010). Recently, on the one hand, work places, spaces, territories and networks are being redefined and reinvented, and on the other hand, theorisations of organisational space are opening up new avenues of exploration and debate. In this special issue we would like to follow Beyes & Holt's (2020) invitation to take space seriously and to think spatially: to recognise that all organisations and actors are in a place or desire a place. Countless boundaries are formed and contested, whereby territories are traversed by atmospheres and affects; and to welcome research and reflections inspired by and addressing this new awareness of the spatial condition of organisations.

Indeed, everywhere, at all scales, workplaces are being dis-placed, borders are being blurred and territories are overlapping or being disputed. The trend towards de-partitioning and de-appropriation, for instance of openspaces and flex-offices, is being accelerated by the massive recourse to teleworking due to the health crisis. These traces, habits and opportunities will probably not be completely erased. The new workspaces are struggling for ‘placemaking’, threatening to become non-places (Augé, 1992), junkspaces (Koolhaas, 2002) or victims of the hygienised aesthetisation of the world (Liposvetski & Serroy, 2013). Third places, alter spaces and other types of organisation are emerging (or closing), in which new democratic spaces and new distributions of activities are being invented; but also new stratifications, vulnerabilities and socialities (Parigot, 2016). Relocations are partly reversed by new territorialisations, or ‘terroirisations’ (Maréchal, 2009). Throughout the postcolonial divide remains sharp and difficult to overcome, and reflects geo-economic and geopolitical equilibrations or fiscal strategies. Migration upsets practices and subjectivities (Daskalaki, 2021). The intimacy of the home and the body (Roux & Belk, 2019) is being connected to the more virtual and global, calling for organisational behaviours to be adapted and reoriented.

Organisation theories are being inspired by spatial thinkers to think about organizational behaviour in a less deterministic way. From Lefebvre (1994), we retain that the daily use of space reflects power structures and we are encouraged to track down spacing activities (Beyes & Steyaert, 2011; Aggrizi et al., 2021), by diverting and inventing new spatial practices. From Casey (1996), we retain that we always represent the organisation from our situated place, and that a place is always an event, in perpetual reconfiguration. From Massey, we discover the political stakes linked to space (2005), notably linked to gender and the multiple facets of inequalities (1994). We understand that we are collectively thrown into space, space thought of as an intersection of stories told simultaneously and place thought of as a collection of such stories. We are invited to think of space no longer as a container but as nodes of relations constitutive of organisation (Sergot & Saives, 2016), as well as productive co-locations (Fabbri, 2016). From Foucault, we recall the devices designed to impose good behaviour in space (Giordano, 2017). With the geophilosophy of Deleuze and Gattari (1991), we become aware of the creativity and sometimes violence of de- and re-territorialisations (1980), and of the possibilities of nomadism, and of how the reorganisations of physical and virtual spaces may lead us towards societies of control (1990).

If we have been called to think about the territorialisation of organisations (Maréchal, Linstead, Munro, 2013) and to acknowledge that organisation needs places to 'take place'; organisations inscribe themselves in and write spaces (Beyes & Holt, 2020). Contesting prescribed spaces can be a work of resistance (Minchella & Sorreda, 2020). We are still left with the task of better understanding the links between new spatial organisations and organisational behaviour.

For this special issue, we call for contributions that describe and question:

• On which topographical imaginaries are our theories of organisational behaviour based?
• What new spatial organisations have been set up to guide behaviour?
• What issues and problems are raised by post-covid spatial reorganisation?
• How are changes experienced, welcomed or resisted at different scales (teleworking, relocation, migration, etc.)?
• What are the effects on the distribution of power, inequalities, precariousness and social justice?
• How are work organisations designed and put into practice to direct behaviour in non-European, non-capitalist, or non-organised spaces?
• What are the effects of the organisation of space on gender and intersectional inequalities?
• Which authors, which theories, which concepts allow us to rethink the links between space and organisational behaviour?
• What are the effects of particular spatial organisations on the possibilities of creativity, control, autonomy and democracy?
• What behaviours are being invented on the new margins, what are the new interstitial spaces?
• How does migration and new nomadism affect the uses, management, and theorisations of space?

All forms of proposals are welcome: theoretical, quantitative or qualitative, functional or critical approaches, as long as they fall within the aims and scope of the RIPCO. One slot in the special issue will be reserved for an article written by a doctoral student.

Submitting articles to the RIPCO is done via the RIPCO manuscript manager website at : https://www.manuscriptmanager.net/ripco

When submitting, authors must choose the special issue "Special issue - Spaces and Organisation Behaviour" from the drop-down menu in the field " If the manuscript is destinated to a Special Issue, please make a choice" found in the "DETAILS" page of the submission. Proposals should follow the editorial standards of the journal: ripco-online.com/en/avantSoumission.asp

All articles submitted to the journal are reviewed on a double-blind basis and all resubmitted manuscripts go through the same review process, and the previously solicited reviewers give an assessment based on consideration of the changes suggested in the first round of review. The final editorial decision will be made on the basis of the proposed revised manuscript, in the form of either an acceptance for publication or a final rejection, possibly with an invitation to resubmit for a regular issue of the journal.

• Agrizzi Dila. Soobaroyen Teerooven & Alsalloom Aber (2021), Spatiality and accounting: The case of female segregation in audit firms, Accounting, Organizations and Society (preview)
• Augé Marc (1992). Non-lieux : Introduction à une anthropologie de la surmodernité. Paris : Les éditions du Seuil.
• Beyes Timon & Holt Robin, (2020) “The Topographical Imagination: Space and Organization Theory.” Organization Theory, Vol. 1, Iss. 2.
• Beyes Timon and Steyaert Chris (2011). “Spacing organization: non-representational theory and performing organizational space”, Organization, 19(1), 45-61.
• Blank Yishai and Rosen-Zvi Issachar (2010) The Spatial Turn in Legal Theory (2010). Hagar: Studies in Culture, Polity and Identity.
• Casey, E. S. 1996. “How to Get from Space to Place in a Fairly Short Stretch of Time: Phenomenological Prolegomena.” In Senses of Place, edited by S. Feld and K. H. Basso. Santa Fe, N.M.; [Seattle]: School of American Research Press.
• Clegg, S. & Kornberger, M. (Eds.). (2006), Space, Organization and Management Theory, Malmö; Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.
• Dale, K. & Burrell, G. (2008). The Spaces of Organisation and the Organisation of Space: Power, Identity and Materiality at Work, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Daskalaki Maria (2021) ‘‘Transnational migration and the new subjects of work: Transmigrants, hybrids and cosmopolitans’: (Un)bounded subjectivities in times of Covid-19’, Organization.
• Deleuze Gilles, 1990, Postscriptum sur les sociétés de contrôle, L’autre journal, n° l, mai.
• Deleuze Gilles & Guattari Félix (1991), Qu’est-ce que la philosophie ?, Paris: Les éditions de minuit.
• Deleuze Gilles & Guattari Félix (1980), Capitalisme et schizophrénie 2 : Mille plateaux, Paris: Les éditions de minuit.
• De Vaujany Françoix-Xavier, 2015, Sociomatérialité et information dans les organisations: Entre bonheur et sens, Laval (Québec) : Presses de l’Université Laval.
• De Vaujany Françoix-Xavier et Mitev Nathalie (eds), 2013, Materiality and Space: Organizations, Artefacts and Practices, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Fabbri Julie (2016), Place as spatio-temporal events”: Empirical evidence from everyday life in a coworking space, M@n@gement, vol. 19(4): 353-361.
• Giordano Florent (2017) La géographie (dés)organisante : savoirs, pouvoirs, normes : analyse interprétative du dispositif de gestion de la santé en région Centre-Val de Loire, Thèse soutenue à l’université de Tours.
• Koolhaas Rem (2002). Junkspace, October, No 100, 175-190.
• Kornberger, M. & Clegg, S. R. (2004). Bringing Space Back in: Organizing the Generative Building. Organization Studies, 25, 1095–1114.
• Lefebvre Henri (1974). La production de l’espace, Paris. Anthropos.
• Lipovetsky, G., & Serroy, J. (2013). L’esthétisation du monde. Vivre à l’âge du capitalisme artiste. Paris: Gallimard.
• Maréchal Garance, 2009, “Terroir”, in A.J. Mills, G. Durepos and E. Wiebe ed(s). Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. London: Sage, 2009, 921-23.
• Maréchal Garance, Linstead Stephen & Munro Iain. (2013) The territorial organization: History, divergence and possibilities. Culture and Organization, 19, 185 - 208.
• Marrewijk Alfons van & Yanow Dvora (2009), Introduction: The Spatial Turn in Organizational Studies, in van Marrewijk & Yanow (eds), Organizational Spaces: Rematerializing the Workaday World, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• Massey, Doreen (2005), For Space, London: Sage.
• Massey, Doreen (1994). Space, place, and gender, Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Minchella Delphine & Sorreda Thomas (2020), Défaire le lieu : le « non-lieu » comme pratique de résistance organisationnelle, Revue Internationale de Psychosociologie et de Gestion des Comportements Organisationnels, n°65, vol. XXVI, pp. 91-106.
• Parigot Julie (2016), De la production d'une organisation alternative via l'espace : le cas des lieux intermédiaires dans le secteur du theatre, Thèse soutenue à l’Université de Paris Dauphine.
• Roux Dominique & Belk Russell (2019), The Body as (Another) Place: Producing Embodied Heterotopias Through Tattooing, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 46, Iss. 3, pp. 483–507.
• Sergot, B. & Saives, A.-L. (2016). Relating place and organization: a situated tribute to Doreen Massey, M@n@gement, (19)4, 335-352.
• Strati Antonio (2004), Esthétique et organisation, Laval (Québec) : Presses de l’Université Laval.
• Taskin, L. & Raone, J. (2014), Flexibilité et disciplinarisation : repenser le contrôle en situation de distanciation, Economies et Sociétés, Série « Etudes critiques en management », KC, 3, 1, 35-69.
• Withers Charles W. J. (2009), Place and the "Spatial Turn" in Geography and in History, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 70, No. 4, pp. 637-658.

contact@ripco-online.com