# An Interdisciplinary Review of Ephemerality for Information Systems Research

Ronan Doyle, Kieran Conboy, David Kreps

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

► To cite this version:

Ronan Doyle, Kieran Conboy, David Kreps. An Interdisciplinary Review of Ephemerality for Information Systems Research. International Working Conference on Transfer and Diffusion of IT (TDIT), Jun 2022, Maynooth, Ireland. pp.3-23, 10.1007/978-3-031-17968-6_1. hal-04666770

HAL Id: hal-04666770

https://inria.hal.science/hal-04666770v1

Submitted on 2 Aug 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

ifip

International Federation for Information Processing

This document is the original author manuscript of a paper submitted to an IFIP
conference proceedings or other IFIP publication by Springer Nature. As such, there
may be some differences in the official published version of the paper. Such
differences, if any, are usually due to reformatting during preparation for publication or
minor corrections made by the author(s) during final proofreading of the publication
manuscript.
# An Interdisciplinary Review of Ephemerality for Information Systems Research

Ronan Doyle<fnref n="1" />, <fnref n="2" />, Kieran Conboy<fnref n="1" />, <fnref n="2" />, and David Kreps<fnref n="1" />, <fnref n="2" />

**Abstract.** Ephemerality should be a significant concept for the information systems (IS) discipline but has not been developed as such. On the one hand, ephemerality is considered a characteristic of the IS "core" and focus, of data, information, and knowledge, and of digital material and the experience of digital technologies. On the other, IS reference to ephemerality is relatively scarce, and use of the term tends to implicitly rely upon the dictionary definition only. As a result, ephemerality is not well defined in the IS literature. Our aim in this study is to contribute to broader and deeper IS understanding of ephemerality. This is important because systems of people and technology are reformulating the meaning of ephemeral. Reformulating our understanding of ephemeral can improve our understanding of diverse, fast-paced, and quickly changing contexts for transfer and diffusion of digital technology. While our ultimate focus is ephemeral in digitalised contexts, our overarching focus is ephemerality as a standalone concept. We conduct an interdisciplinary review of the temporal and material qualities of the ephemeral in disciplines including sociology, philosophy, organisation studies, performance studies, new media studies, and IS. Out of this review, we propose a definition for ephemeral and develop a conceptual framework of ephemeral dimensions and characteristics, in which ephemerality is not only characterized by short-lived, unstable duration, but also by repetition, recombination, and durability. We conclude by briefly situating the framework in an IS context.

**Keywords:** Ephemeral, Information Systems, Interdisciplinary, Review

## 1 Introduction

The *Oxford English Dictionary* (2004) defines ‘ephemeral’ as ‘lasting or used for a very short time.’ Ephemeral phenomena and materials shape human experience of the world (Döring et al., 2013). Indeed, it is routinely assumed (Conboy et al., 2020; Kavanagh, 2007) and theorized that our increasingly digitized world is particularly ephemeral (e.g.: Urry, 2000; Bauman, 2000; Castells, 1996). The lifespans of digital technologies, of digital information and its circulation, of work and news cycles, and of popular culture and market trends seem progressively evanescent. In the information systems (IS) context, ephemerality is considered characteristic of the IS “core” and focus (Lytinnen & King, 2004; Niederman et al., 1990), of digital material (Yoo, 2010; Lytinnen, 2021),

<footnote n="1">¹ National University of Ireland, Galway</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Lero (Science Foundation Ireland Research Centre for Software)</footnote>

<footnote>r.doyle28@nuigalway.ie</footnote>
and of the human experience of digital technologies (Yoo, 2010). Ephemerality is now emerging in IS as an intentional design choice (Xu et al., 2018) in areas like the Internet of Things (IoT) (Huang et al., 2019), blockchain (Henry et al., 2018), and social media (Morlok et al., 2018), not least because the technical, regulatory, and social scenarios that require ephemerality are seemingly escalating (Giallorenzo et al., 2019).<fnref n="1" />

The problem is that the concept of ephemerality is not well defined in the literature. Ephemerality is most frequently applied in IS as an adjective but with little qualification (e.g.: ephemeral online communities (Quintarelli et al., 2019), ephemeral blockchain functions (Gisdakis et al., 2015), and ephemeral design knowledge (vom Brocke et al., 2020)). Yoo's (2010) impactful and insightful experiental computing paper notes ephemerality as one of three characteristics of digital but does not delineate what ephemeral means. In such cases, IS researchers are informed only by the dictionary definition and the context of the individual study. If digital is the future of IS (Burton-Jones et al., 2021) and ephemerality partially characterizes digital, we believe that a broader and deeper understanding of ephemerality will benefit IS stakeholders.

Bødker (2017), for example, suggests that IS must ‘move towards a more general concern with how ubiquitous and pervasive computing is *entangled* with mundane “being”.’ Broader and deeper conceptualisation of the everyday ephemeral can augment theorization of digital. As Taylor (2007, p.4/5) puts it, ‘digital technologies… further ask us to reformulate our understanding of… the ephemeral.’ The challenge is to determine not only how digital is ephemeral, but also how digital is reformulating the meaning of ephemeral. IS researchers are well positioned to provide new theoretical perspectives on, for example, the ephemerality of digital transformation boundaries (Sandberg et al., 2020), of information and knowledge (Salovaara & Tuunainen, 2015; Alavi & Leidner, 2001), and of organizations (Prester et al., 2019), as well as the ephemeral nature of the sociomaterial and processual (Orlikowski & Scott, 2008; Mousavi Baygi et al., 2021). Enhanced understanding can also contribute to disentangling the ephemeral from associated (and similarly elusive) digital-related concepts such as social acceleration (Fichman et al., 2014) and fluidity (Malhotraa & Majchrzak, 2021).

On the other hand, lack of conceptual depth stymies development of normative principles around ephemerality, raising potentiality for ephemerality-related risk (McPeak, 2018; Shein, 2013). The ephemeral highlights, for example, regulatory and corporate compliance concerns around the technical preservation of knowledge (Kelly & Baron, 2019). Ephemerality-based social media<fnref n="2" /> are implicated in US election interference (Mueller, 2019) and Uber has directed employees to no longer use such platforms for Uber-related business. We will not adequately regulate for the consequences of digital ephemerality without better understanding what the ephemeral implies. Enhanced un-

<footnote n="1">¹ Technical scenarios include storage constraints around IoT systems. Regulatory scenarios include concerns around persistence of data. Social scenarios include user desire for more authentic forms of digital communication. Mark Zuckerberg claims that ephemeral-type social media ‘are by far the fastest growing areas of online communication’ (Zuckerberg, 2019).</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Examples of ‘ephemerality-based platforms’ (Morlok et al., 2018) include Snapchat, Telegram, Wickr, Clubhouse, and Confide. Other apps are also adding ephemeral functionality to their platforms, such as Facebook and Instagram Vanish Mode, TikTok Stories, WhatsApp View Once, and Twitter Spaces. Web-tools like TweetDelete enable automatic deletion of tweets.</footnote>
derstanding may also help disentangle the ephemeral from issues like privacy, anonym-
ity, and trust (Welsh, 2020; Schlesinger et al., 2017).

However, despite noteworthy IS reference to the ephemeral, to the best of our
knowledge no IS study characterizes the concept in depth. Ephemerality is receiving
attention in other fields. In the humanities and social sciences, the ephemeral informs
interpretations of modernity and postmodernity (e.g.: Simmel, 1900; Harvey, 1989;
Castells, 1996; Bauman, 2000; Rosa, 2019). There is a rich lineage of ephemerality as
a concept in the performance arts (Reason, 2006) and in media studies (Grainge, 2011).
Philosophers (e.g.: Bergson 1911, 1946; Buci-Glucksmann, 2003; Grosz, 2013), artists
(e.g.: Purpura, 2009), and urban planners (e.g.: Lefebvre, 1970; Crane, 2015; Vera &
Mehrotra, 2015) have been motivated by ephemerality. Ephemerality is also a feature
of studies in philosophy of science (Glennan, 2009), organisation studies (e.g.: Bakker
et al., 2016; Elkjaer, 2017; Sydow, 2017), computer science (e.g.: Schlesinger et al.,
2017), consumer research (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2017), cyberpsychology (Utz et al.,
2015), marketing (Belanche et al., 2019), and communication (Bayer et al., 2016; Kaun
& Stiernstedt, 2004). The contexts of digitalisation are common to most recent studies.

We suggest the IS perspective on ephemerality should be widely and uniquely in-
formative, not least because ephemerality is seen to challenge both social and technical
norms (Haber, 2019; McRoberts et al, 2017). For example, with the rate of digital in-
novation, product introduction, and diffusion accelerating (e.g.: Gunther McGrath,
2013), we might consider how ephemeral materials, spaces, timelines, and interactions
challenge traditional theory around technology diffusion (e.g.: Rogers, 1963). The ob-
jective of this research, therefore, is to contribute toward overcoming the issues and
realizing the benefits outlined above by providing a rich definition and characterisation
of the ephemeral based upon an interdisciplinary literature review of the term.

The remainder of this article is structured as follows: in section 2, we discuss the
theoretical background relevant to the review; in section 3, we outline our methodolog-
ical approach; in section 4, we present our interdisciplinary review, develop a concep-
tual framework of ephemeral dimensions and characteristics, and propose a definition
for ephemeral; section 5 situates our conceptualisation of ephemeral in an IS context.

## 2 Theoretical Background

As per *Merriam-Webster* (2022), the etymological roots of ‘ephemeral’ are found in
the Greek word *ephēmeros* from the stems *epi-* (meaning ‘on’ or ‘in’) and *hēmera*
(meaning ‘day’), which, in combination, yield the adjective *ephemeron* (meaning ‘last-
ing (only) a day’). Young (2003) provides an excellent account of the historical devel-
opment of the term and its derivatives, noting *ephemera* (plural of ephemeron) as the
source of our contemporary ‘short-lived’ understanding. Today, *ephemera* is largely
employed as a noun for things that exist or are used for a short time only. Early usage
includes Aristotle applying *ephemera* to insects of very brief life span and the astro-
nomical and astrological use of tabulated texts called *ephemerides* (plural noun derived
from the adjective) to identify the regular placement of celestial bodies on specific days.
It is not until the 1800s, however, that an increase is noted in the use of the adjectival form *ephemeral* through its ‘application to transitory objects and abstract ideas’ (ibid.).

‘Ephemeral’ thus emerges in the nineteenth century as a ‘signifier’ of modernity (Marcus & Saka, 2006). Baudelaire (1863), characterizing modernity (in part) as ‘the ephemeral, the fugitive, the contingent,’ worries about ‘a riot of [ephemeral] details’. As such, the task is to ‘distill the eternal from the transitory’ (ibid.), which sets an antagonistic and dualistic template of sorts, particularly in Western thinking, for the modernist relationship with the ephemeral. In modernity, the ephemeral is ‘that which is resistant to meaning’ (Doane, 2002, p11). For Marx, Dostoevsky, and Goethe, the ephemeral must be ‘confronted’ and, as is possible, ‘dealt with’ (Harvey, 1989). And even though, for Benjamin (1918, p.100) ‘the integrity of an experience that is ephemeral’ must be established on its own terms, for he too the perceived rise of the ephemeral in modernity is a form of ‘hell’ (Osborne & Charles, 2020). This negative, acutely modernist sense of the ephemeral is borne not only of its problematic ‘representability’ (Doane, 2002, p.11), of our inability to fix and quantify ephemeral value, but also of an emergent sense of the implications of ephemerality for stable societal structures, processes, and relations. In ephemeral digital contexts, for example, where the ephemeral is ‘commonly seen more as a problem than as a solution’ (Cotta et al., 2015), ‘fixing’ the ephemeral remains the predominant objective. The imposed aim for technologies, in the main, has long been to ‘de-ephemeralise’ the ephemeral (Evans, 2011).

The ephemeral is perhaps most directly confronted in postmodern thinking. Given its basis in a ‘‘weak’ ontology of *becoming*’ (Chia, 1995), postmodernism ‘wallows’ in ‘total acceptance of… ephemerality’ (Harvey, 1989, p.27). In challenging the logic of language and organizing, the postmodernist aims to more adequately express ‘the ephemeral aspects of process’ (Chia, 1995). It is not surprising then that the ephemeral receives particular attention in research traditions that, firstly, are significantly defined by their relation to the transitory and, secondly, wrestle with postmodern perspectives. For example, Artieri and colleagues (2020) note that ephemerality is a core focus in performance studies (e.g.: Phelan, 1993) and in media studies (e.g.: Grainge, 2011). On one level, the primary research challenge of the ephemeral is to ‘write time’ (Reason, 2006), which, as we know, can be exceptionally difficult (e.g.: Dawson, 2014). However, time is not the only concern when considering what counts as ephemeral.

Across the literature, two dimensions of the ephemeral reflect dictionary definitions: the temporal and the material. The temporal refers, as per standard definition (*ephemeral*), to experiences or perceptions of short duration: the perception of a rainbow, the experience of verbal interaction, the brief timeline of an ephemeral digital text. The material refers, as per standard definition (*ephemera*), to objects or things of time-limited and insubstantial value: train tickets, event programs, the content of an ephemeral digital text. In our view, it is essential to consider both the temporal and material aspects of the ephemeral for three reasons. Firstly, because digital is theorised to have material properties (Yoo, 2010; Leonardi, 2010). If digital is ephemeral, it is ephemeral in material and temporal ways. Secondly, because the qualities of material ephemera ‘reflect the fact that they [are] only designed for short-term existence’ (Crowther & Mac Cumhaill, 2018). In other words, the material qualities of the ephemeral shape the temporal qualities of the ephemeral, and vice versa. And thirdly, because conceptualisation of
the ephemeral as solely temporal (or material) will be complicated by several additional
factors. As will be developed in section 4, the ephemeral is not merely time-bound,
singular, and insubstantial: the unstable ephemeral is also repetitive, recombinatory,
and durable, with agency and meaning distributed in time.

3 Methodological Approach

Motivated by an interdisciplinary IS review (Smith et al., 2015) of another ‘hard-to-fix’ concept (privacy), the three-stage, concept-centric review approach proposed by Webster and Watson (2002) is followed. First, we performed a broad search spanning the information systems, social sciences, philosophy, humanities, marketing, management, and organisation theory literatures. We queried relevant library catalogues, journal databases, and conference proceedings. Search terms included ‘ephemeral’, ‘ephemeral AND definition’, ‘ephemeral AND information systems’, and ‘ephemeral AND digital’. Secondly, working *backward* to broaden the scope further (*ibid*.), we reviewed the citations for the articles identified in step one, identifying literature of potential interest in other disciplines, including performance and media studies. Finally, we used Web of Science to work *forward* (*ibid*.), identifying further candidate articles citing the key articles previously identified. In total, 135 articles and 26 books were selected.

4 Interdisciplinary Review of the Ephemeral

Sub-sections 4.1 through 4.4 present our interdisciplinary review of the ephemeral. A tabulated conceptual framework of ephemeral dimensions and characteristics follows in sub-section 4.5. A definition for the ephemeral is proposed in sub-section 4.6.

**4.1 Short-lived: Speed, Compression, Limitation**

Ephemeral timespans can range from split seconds, through minutes, weeks, and months, to years (Doring et al., 2013; Datry et al., 2017; Vidal-Abarca et al., 2020) and millions of years in, for example, geological contexts (Rohr & Furlong, 1995). Nevertheless, in any specific context, the ephemeral always seems relatively short-lived (Schneider & Foot, 2004), always conveys ‘connotations of brevity and evanescence’ (Gringe, 2011, p.3). For example, ephemeral products (such as ephemeral hygiene products (López-Forniés & Sierra-Pérez, 2021) or ephemeral digital products, like Snapchat (Villaespesa & Wowkowych, 2020)) are ‘short-term oriented’ (Janssen et al., 2014). Approached as form, process, or perspective, the ephemeral always seems short-term (Bakker et al., 2016). Ephemeral ‘briefness’, however, is not only defined in terms of duration. The short-lived quality of the ephemeral is also shaped by interrelated forms of speed, compression, and limitation.

Firstly, social theorists have described the ephemeral in terms of an accelerated (and
accelerating) pace of change and life (e.g.: Bauman, 2000; Urry, 2000; Rosa, 2013).
Ephemeral speed is evident in the turnover of technologies, fashions, products, labor
processes, ideas, and images (Urry, 1995, p.177); in the ‘high-speed temporality’ of
social media practice (Arda, 2021); in ephemeral organizations having to ‘quickly convert decision into action’ (Lanzara, 1983), and in the speed of access to ephemeral forms of consumption (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2017). Ephemeral speed is further illustrated in relationships that are quickly formed and disbanded (Biraghi et al., 2018), in the speed of production and circulation for various types of new media (Grainge, 2011, p.3), and in the acceleration of sociotechnical innovation (Heylighen, 2007). However, Chun (2008) advises that we need to ‘think beyond speed’ because ‘flow and segmentation do not quite encompass digital media’s ephemerality.’

Secondly, the ephemeral compresses perceptual boundaries of value to timeframes localised to the present. As Young (2003) puts it, ‘immediacy binds the ephemeral object more tightly to the occasion.’ This compressed relationship of the ephemeral and the present time reinforces its short-lived nature. That the ephemeral ‘inhabits the present’ (Chun, 2016, p.160) and is perceivable in the ‘here and now’ is not only ‘essential for [its] effectiveness’ (Grudin, 2001, citing Toda, 1991) but also intensifies the impact – both immediate *and* longer term – of the ephemeral. High-level social theory abstractions like ‘time-space compression’ (Harvey, 1989), ‘timeless time’ (Castells, 1996), ‘liquid modernity’ (Bauman, 2000), and ‘instantaneous time’ (Urry, 2000) theorise this quality of the ephemeral. Liquid modernity, for example, describes a rate of change so short-lived, quickly changing, and present-oriented that effective stabilisation of societal structures is no longer feasible. Eckhardt and Bardhi (2020), drawing from Bauman to develop a framework of ‘liquid consumption’ around three constructs (one being ephemerality (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2017)), note that the ephemeral refers to ‘the expiration date of value increasingly shortening’. In characterising the ephemerality of ‘instantaneous time’, Urry also observes (2000, p.125) that time-horizons for decision-making are dramatically compressed.

Thirdly and consequently, the short-lived ephemeral is by nature limited. ‘Anchored in the present’ (He & Kivetz, 2016), the nature of ephemeral time is ‘fundamentally perishable’ (Reason, 2006) and the ephemeral moment seems materially ‘constrained’ (Bayer et al., 2015). The ephemerality of live performance is one clear example (Kirby, 1974; Barba, 1990; Schieffelin, 1998). Dance, for instance, is said to exist at a ‘perpetual vanishing point’ (Siegel, 1972) whereby, ‘at the moment of its creation it is gone.’ Phelan (1993) and Auslander (1999) note that ephemeral live performance is predicated upon disappearance; ephemeral organisations ‘are there to disappear’ (Lanzara, 1983); for Grainge (2011), the ephemerality of web content means that ‘digital materials are always under threat of disappearing’; ephemeral digital texts can be materially restricted to a specific number of views or a pre-determined span of viewing time (Chen & Cheung, 2019; Vazquez-Herrero et al., 2019), and ephemeral edge computing proposes computation limited by ‘stringent time constraints’ (Lee et al., 2020).

In sum, the short-lived (durational) quality of the ephemeral is characterised by speed (of change), compression (of space, time, artifact, action, experience, value, and/or relevance to the present), and limitation (of space, time, artifact, action, experience, value, and/or relevance).
## 4.2 Repetitive: Anticipated, Varied

Ephemeral time is a time 'of repetitions and variations' (Buci-Glucksmann, 2012). Performance scholars illuminate the repetitive quality of the ephemeral through the logic that 'ephemerality [is] 'repeated each night of a repeated live performance' (Reason, 2006). For media scholars, television programs are 'ephemeral in the sense of being both fleeting and repeated', with the *most repeated* programs considered particularly ephemeral (Uricchio, 2011, p.28-31). And Schneider and Foot (2004) write that digital content is 'ephemeral in its construction' because it must be reconstructed or reproduced to be experienced. The ephemeral is also cyclically repetitive. Brassley (1998) describes ephemeral cycles of change in the study of landscapes, ranging from twice-daily (i.e.: the movement of tides) to the progression of the seasons. Archaeological ephemeral artworks related to rites and performances are cyclical (López-Bertran, 2019). And for Vera and Mehrotra (2015), the cyclically celebrated religious event in the ephemeral city of Kumbh Mela expresses 'a range of [material and temporal] ephemeral configurations.' In such places – and others, like humanitarian camps, natural disaster shelters, work settlements, and music festivals – the life cycle of the material ephemeral object (be it city, camp, shelter, settlement, or festival environment) – aligns with the duration of the activity so that objective start and end times are predictable. Applying the same logic to theatre spaces, we might say that ephemerality is repeated, Wednesday through Sunday, from 8pm to 11pm, for three months.<fnref n="3" />

Ephemeral repetition, therefore, not only infers orientation to the ephemeral 'past' but also anticipation of the ephemeral 'future'. Anticipation can range from the relative certainty of *anticipated ephemera* (Brassley, 1998) (that is, ephemeral repetition we fully expect to occur) to the uncertainty of the ephemeral as 'a space of projective anticipation' (Crane, 2015). For example, we may accurately anticipate the future repetition of tide movements, the upcoming run of a play, or the materialisation of a revisited webpage. Similarly, 'anticipation of the future embodied actions and activities', or *how ephemerality might be repeated*, is an important feature in ephemeral work settings (Hindmarsh & Pilnick, 2007). The ephemeral is 'full of anticipation' (Purpura, 2009). Drawing from Lefebvre (1970), Crane (2015) describes the ephemeral urban space as one of 'projective anticipation', where 'groups take control of spaces for expressive actions and constructions, which are soon destroyed' (Lefebvre, 1970, p.130). Pop-up spaces, demonstration or celebration spaces, walls or hoardings displaying flyers and graffiti, and virus-testing or vaccination clinics are illustrative instantiations of ephemeral urban space. The ephemerality of these spaces is characterized not only by being short-lived but also by the anticipation that the ephemeral will be repeated *in the space*.

Finally, ephemeral repetition is further evident in the habituation of ephemeral actions. Consider, for example, the ephemerality of a mouse-click or the ease with which the ephemeral is enacted through taps, swipes, and scrolls on mobile digital platforms.

<footnote n="3">³ Opposing this perspective is the view that the ephemerality of performance is ontologically unre repeatable; the idea that 'a gesture, once made, can never be made the same way twice' (Artaud, 1938, p.75). Albeit an extreme example, the staging of the 20,000th performance of *The Mousetrap* in London on 16 December 2000 challenges the demonstrable practicality, if not the essence, of this perspective (Reason, 2006, p.16).</footnote>
‘Repetition breeds expertise,’ writes Chun (2016). In this sense, following Bergson and Deleuze, repetition through the habitual enables forms of stability ‘in a universe in which nothing truly repeats’ (Grosz, 2013). For Deleuze (1994), to repeat ‘is to behave in a certain manner, but in relation to something unique or singular.’ Using the example of festivals, Deleuze writes that repetitions ‘do not add a second and a third time to the first, but carry the first time to the ‘nth’ power.’ Hindmarsh and Pilnick (2007) reflect this understanding in their study of ephemeral workteams in surgical settings, where actors ‘*(re)produce the routine or normative character of activities for the first time again.*’ We might say in summation that ephemeral repetition orients to the past to stabilize the present in a variation of that past, and, simultaneously, anticipates the future in repeated and varied forms of the ephemeral present.

Consequently, the short-lived limitation of disappearance does not negate the possibility of ephemeral repetition. For Phelan (1993), repetition marks the repeated as ‘different’. In other words, the ephemeral repeats in ephemeral ways: there is always some variation, something unique, in repetitions of the ephemeral.

## 4.3 Recombinatory: Multiple Possibilities

The short-lived ephemeral is recombinatory. Ephemeral recombination repurposes the ‘old’ ephemeral artifact, action, space, or experience in a ‘new’ ephemeral present. The ephemeral city is dismantled and its material components ‘recycled or repurposed’ (Vera & Mehrotra, 2015). Ephemeral architecture’ is a ‘system in which entire fragments of the building may be reclaimed and preserved’ (Armada, 2012). And ‘old’ ephemeral media texts are recombined again and again in ‘new’ ephemeral sequences and contexts (Urrichio, 2011, p.28). Digital technology intensifies the ephemeral capacity for recombination. For example, the ephemeral recombination of prodigious volumes of diverse and ephemeral digital texts (Grainge 2011, p.3; Chun, 2008) is endemic in copying, cutting, pasting, splicing, and circulation of ephemeral digital texts. Mashup applications similarly enable recombination of diverse functionalities from multiple web domains (Kreps & Kimppa, 2015).

We distinguish the ephemerally repetitive from the ephemerally recombinatory in two interrelated ways. Firstly, where the meaning or knowledge gained from the ephemerally repetitive is sufficiently *similar* to the past or ‘first’ ephemeral, the meaning or knowledge gained from the ephemerally recombined is sufficiently *different*. For example, the roof of a food stall in the ephemeral city is recombined as one wall of a dwelling in a work settlement. Or the rerun of a television series recombines the ephemeral meaning of the artifact (the ‘framework of coherence’ (Urrichio, 2011, p.28) for both old and first-time viewers. The ephemeral not only implies ‘degradation or disappearance, but… is also productive, transformative’ (Purpura, 2009).

And secondly, where the ephemerally repetitive *anticipates* the future, the ephemerally recombinatory opens up the future in *multiple possibilities*. Lefebvre (1970) defines the urban ephemeral space as ‘multifunctional, polyvalent, transfunctional’ (Crane, 2015). In the ephemeral city, there are ‘infinite possibilities for recombination’ (Vera & Mehrotra, 2015). Guillaume and Huysmans (2018) suggest the ephemeral ‘intro-
duces a multiplicity of political temporalities.’ In ephemeral organisations, the ‘possi-
bilities for action and response are multiplied’ (Lanzara, 1983). And in the context of
consumer entrepreneurship, for Biraghi and colleagues (2018) it is the ephemerality of
digital platforms that ‘holds together the whole business model, throughout creating,
de-configuring, and re-configuring.’ In the examples cited, however, there remains a
sense of linearity and succession, which the ephemeral is theorised to disrupt. Time is
also recombined through the ephemeral.

In its future orientation, the ephemerally recombinatory is more fragmented and dis-
jointed than the ephemerally repetitive. For Castells (1996), the temporality of ‘timeless
time’ disorders succession and fosters simultaneity, creating what he terms ‘structural
ephemerality’ (Castells; 2004, p.57). For example, remote and non-linear work-day
models (Gibbs et al., 2021; Dong et al., 2021) disorder the traditional segregation and
linear flow of the working day, highlighting the overlap between ‘ephemeral compu-
ting’ and ‘ubiquitous computing’ (Cotta et al., 2015; Camacho et al., 2018). In a similar
vein, media scholars note that as the digitized file can be recombined (that is, stopped,
repeated, rearranged, edited, catalogued, and discarded (Kompare, 2002, p.1), it disor-
ders the traditional, linear temporal logic of broadcast flow (Williams, 1974). In cul-
tures organized around systems of electronic media, the various forms of ‘ephemeral
symbolic communication’ (Castells, 2000) become a productive constituent of ephem-
eral ‘timeless time’ (i.e.: reality) (Castells, 1996; Buci-Glucksman, 2012). Fundamental
to these systems, through digitalization and recurrent communication, is their recombi-
natory ability (Castells, 2004, p.12). While the digitized media file should, in theory,
resist ephemerality, online streaming of files is ultimately considered ephemeral be-
cause, in part, files are amenable to external recombination.

In sum, recombination of the ‘past’ ephemeral (space, time, artifact, action, or expe-
rience) enables repurposing of the ephemeral *from* the ephemeral in fragmented, dis-
jointed ways that opens up the future in multiple possibilities.

4.4 Unstable, Durable

The short-lived ephemeral is unstable. Ephemerality is directly associated with organ-
isational instability (Bechky, 2006; van Marrewijk et al., 2016). Ephemeral art is ‘in-
herently unstable’ (Purpura, 2009) and ephemeral digital art ‘utterly unstable and prone
to endless transformations’ (Denoit, 2014). Digital is ephemerally unstable because, for
example, software and hardware ‘constantly change, manically upgrade’ (Chun, 2016).
Ephemeral computing environments are unstable and ever-changing (Cotta et al., 2016;
Camacho et al., 2018). And ephemeral time is ‘unstable time, made up of fragments’
(Guillaume & Huysmans, 2018). In processual terms, ‘ephemeral emergence’ (Sawyer,
2005, p.210-214) cannot be known in advance because it occurs within ‘episodic inter-
active encounters’ (Tsoukas, 2016). In postmodern terms, the ephemeral ‘is interested
in following traces, glimmers, residues, and specks of things’ (Muñoz, 1996, p.10).

The instability of the ephemeral underpins the modernist challenge of ‘fixing’ the
ephemeral. Archivists have a difficult time categorising, storing, and defining ephemera
(Young, 2003). Political scientists suggest the ephemeral cannot be represented stati-
cally (Guillaume & Huysmans, 2018).<fnref n="4" /> The concept of ‘stage detritus’ highlights the
‘unstable’ state of live performance (Reason, 2006, p.54). And in media research the
ephemeral has been used to signify ‘moving image detritus’ (Grainge, 2011, p.2), such
as out-takes, outdated television sets, and the trash associated with movie theatres (Has-
tie, 2007). Finally, the ephemeral as a concept is somewhat passed over in the proces-
sual literature (Kreps et al., 2020), where reality is ephemerally unstable and stability,
not change, must be accounted for (Chia & Nayak, 2017). The Bergsonian, not ‘short-
lived’, sense of duration applies in processual thinking, where ‘temporariness’ is ‘cen-
terstage’ (Bakker et al., 2017) and ‘the ephemeral and dynamic becomingness of human
experience as a continuous flow of creative action’ is the focus (Garud et al., 2015).

However, the short-lived, unstable ephemeral is also durable. For archaeologists, the
ephemeral is ‘embodied or materialized in durable objects’ (López-Bertran, 2019). An-
thropologists note that ephemeral objects of value are also ‘the durable material of cul-
tural resilience and continuity’ (Lepani, 2012, p.75), with the short-lived limitation of
such objects catalysing their durability (MacCarthy, 2017). Ephemeral architecture sus-
tains cultural meaning (Armada, 2012) and legacy (Colfer, 2019). ‘Resilience’ is a key
property of any algorithm operating in ephemeral environments (Camacho et al., 2018).
And the limitations of ephemeral social media content result in ‘less loss (or forgetting)’
of ephemeral content than of content perceived as more stable (van Nimwegen & Berg-
man, 2019; Bayer et al., 2016). Digital technology intensifies ephemeral durability,
complicating ‘any clear division between technology as *either* permanent or ephemeral’
(Evans, 2011, p.157; *italics added*). Chun (2016) writes that digital information is ‘cu-
riously undead, constantly regenerating’. And media scholars note that although the
‘configuration of space/time constructed through online media’ is unstable and frag-
mented, the ephemeral fragments ‘are so abundant as to be inexhaustible’ and ‘connect
us into a network’ (Grainge, 2011, p.224). In the workings and experience of this net-
work, the ephemeral is ‘made to endure’ (Chun, 2008).

Ephemeral durability attunes us to the anticipation and possibility in the ephemeral and distributes the ephemeral in time. Repetition and recombination prolong the durability of the ephemeral by extending or repurposing the ‘prior’ ephemeral in the ‘new’ ephemeral present. The past of a primary ephemeral text (e.g.: a tweet) is ‘reactivated’ through ‘knowledge that has since been acquired’ (Uricchio, 2011, p.29/30). Or the ‘affective ephemera of likes and comments’ (Haber, 2019) stimulates what has objectively passed, regenerating new agency, meaning, and durability in the ephemeral.

Finally, the durability of the unstable ephemeral guides us toward the idea that the
ephemeral is not only short-lived but ‘eternal’ (e.g.: Benjamin’s ‘eternal ephemerality’
(1920/21, p.281); Castells’ ‘eternal ephemerality’ (2010, p.497), and what Jameson
(1991, p.64-68/71-2), after Lacan, calls the ‘eternal present’ (the unification of past and
future with present)). In a landmark new media paper, Chun (2008) observes that digital
technology originates non-linear temporalities that move ‘simultaneously towards the
future and the past’, proliferating what she terms ‘enduring ephemerals’. When digital-
isation facilitates the ephemeral gathering of ‘everything into the present’ (Chun, 2016),

<footnote n="4">⁴ Performance art scholars directly address this tension through, for example, critical review.</footnote>
the modernist tension inherent to the unstable ephemeral is no longer a dualism but a duality, no longer ‘either/or’ but ‘and’: the ephemeral is fleeting *and* persistent (van Nimwegen & Bergman, 2019), old *and* new (Chun, 2008), ‘open-ended *and* constrained’ (Tsoukas, 2016), short-lived *and* durable (Pimlott, 2011; Gale, 2009). We are given a sense of this perspective in Prado and Sapsed’s (2016) study of ephemeral innovations in project-based organisations, where ‘permanence is only realized through activation in the temporary.’

Husserl emphasizes that no experience is ephemeral merely in the sense of being short-lived or momentary (Moran, 2011). The short-lived ephemeral ‘is not fleeting’ (Haber, 2019). Rather, lived experience and ‘the objective moment constituted in it, may become “forgotten”; but for all this, it in no way disappears without a trace… it has merely become latent’ (Husserl, 1948/1973, p.122). Husserlian traces are afforded material and temporal durability in the digital network. In the material documentation of ephemeral live performance, it is noted that representations of the ephemeral ‘contain something of the thing itself… which are not the thing itself’ (Reason, 2006, P.232). The unstable ephemeral, in ephemeral ways, endures.

## 4.5 A Framework of Ephemeral Dimensions and Characteristics

The dialectical tension (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995) between ‘ephemeral’ being short-lived *and* durable is not, in our view, a condition to be resolved but rather that condition which epitomises the ephemeral. This *logic of opposition* (Boudreau and Robey, 1999) identifies the ephemeral as short-lived and durable by incorporating repetition and recombination. Below, we characterize the ephemeral through the four dimensions of Yoo’s (2010) schematic for experiental computing: space, time, artifacts, and actors. We consider the schematic appropriate for three reasons. Firstly, experiental computing is concerned with ‘computing in everyday life experiences’ (ibid.). The ephemeral is that which is processed and encountered in the everyday (Guillaume & Huysmans, 2018). Secondly, experiental computing describes a spatiotemporal context ‘that is temporary and unfolds over time’ (Yoo, 2010). The material and temporal ephemeral is both short-lived and distributed in space and time. Thirdly, we consider the schematic an appropriately broad structure for conceptualizing the ephemeral in IS research.

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Conceptual Framework of Ephemeral Dimensions and Characteristics</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Ephemeral dimensions</th><th colspan="4">Ephemeral characteristics</th></tr><tr><th>Short-lived</th><th>Repetitive</th><th>Recombinatory</th><th>Unstable, Durable</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Time</td><td><i>Speed:</i><br>of change<br><i>Compression:</i><br>of and to the<br>present time<br><i>Limitation:</i><br>by transience,<br>disappearance</td><td><i>Repetitive:</i> recy-<br>cling of past in<br>repetition; ephem-<br>erality increased<br>through repetition<br><i>Anticipated:</i><br>looks to future<br>repetition<br><i>Varied:</i> present<br>stabilized in varia-<br>tion of past</td><td><i>Recombinatory:</i><br>repurposing of<br>past in present;<br>repurposed pre-<br>sent sufficiently<br>different to past;<br>repurposed time<br>disordered<br><i>Multiple possibili-<br>ties:</i> future is<br>open, uncertain</td><td><i>Unstable:</i><br>emergent, volatile,<br>non-linear, frag-<br>mented, fleeting<br>temporal traces<br><i>Durable:</i><br>duality of ephem-<br>eral time as short-<br>lived *and* durable/<br>‘eternal’</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>Space</td><td>Speed: of spatial transformation<br>Compression: of space and the present time<br>Limitation: of spatial value, use, and relevance</td><td>Repetitive: recycling of space; ephemeral-ity increased through repetition<br>Anticipated: ephemeral will be repeated in the space<br>Varied: present space stabilized in similar variation of past</td><td>Recombinatory: repurposing of space that is sufficiently different to past use or form of the space<br>Multiple possibilities: future ephemerality of the space is open, uncertain</td><td>Unstable: short-lived spatial limitations<br>Durable: ephemeral materialized and extended in space through repetition and/or recombination; endurance catalyzed by being short-lived</td></tr><tr><td>Artifact</td><td>Speed: of material production, circulation, and consumption<br>Compression: of material value, use, and relevance<br>Limitation: of social and technical functions</td><td>Repetitive: recycling of artifact; ephemerality increased through repetition<br>Anticipated: ephemeral will be repeated through the artifact<br>Varied: present artifact stabilized in similar variation of past</td><td>Recombinatory: repurposing of artifact that is sufficiently different to past use or form of the artifact<br>Multiple possibilities: future ephemerality of the artifact is open, uncertain</td><td>Unstable: short-lived material limitations<br>Durable: ephemeral materialized and extended in artifacts through repetition and/or recombination; endurance catalyzed by being short-lived</td></tr><tr><td>Actor</td><td>Speed: of perception, experience, agency<br>Compression: of perception, experience, agency to the present time<br>Limitation: of perception, experience, agency to the present time</td><td>Repetitive: recycling of agency, experience; ephemeral-ity increased through repetition<br>Anticipated: looks to future repetition of agency, experience<br>Varied: present agency, experience stabilized in variation of past</td><td>Recombinatory: repurposing of perception, experience, agency that is sufficiently different to past perception, experience, agency<br>Multiple possibilities: future ephemerality of perception, experience, agency is open, uncertain</td><td>Unstable: short-lived limitations of perception, experience, and agency<br>Durable: ephemeral embodied and extended in perception, experience, and agency through repetition and/or recombination; endurance catalyzed by being short-lived</td></tr></table>

## 4.6 A Definition for Ephemeral

Out of our review and framework, we propose the following definition for ‘ephemeral’: *the ephemeral refers to unstable times, spaces, artifacts, and actors that are both relatively short-lived and repetitive, recombinatory, and durable.*
# 5 Conclusion: Situating the Ephemeral in an IS Context

Ephemerality can help describe the diverse, fast-paced, and unstable contexts for transfer and diffusion of digital technology. For example, the periodicity between major innovations in traditional theories of diffusion (e.g.: Rogers, 1963) is less plausible in ephemeral conditions where innovation, adoption, and diffusion can quickly be undone (e.g.: SEJ.com, 2019). Even if delays remain determinable, they are compressing because of accelerating innovation (Heylighen, 2007). As cited in section 1, ephemerality is referenced in multiple IS contexts, including digital transformation (Mousavi Baygi et al., 2021) and social media (Urquhart & Vaast, 2012). Dictionary definition of ephemeral, together with study context, implicitly informs most IS reference to the term.<fnref n="5" /> This is problematic, as we outline below in the context of social media.

In IS social media research the ephemeral is routinely conceptualised as short-lived only (e.g.: Morlok et al., 2017; 2018; Browne et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2016). The degree of ephemerality is subsequently determined by the perceived duration of the singular ephemeral event, with shorter timespans denoting ‘stronger’ ephemerality and vice versa (Morlok et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2016). Through this lens, a three-second Snapchat ‘snap’ is more ephemeral than a ten-second ‘snap’ (Morlok et al., 2018). However, the ephemeral characteristics of repetition and recombination attune us to ephemeral durability, with practical implications for how ephemerality is described in research and design. That ephemeral social media content is, for example, subject to screenshotsing, is characteristic of ephemerality, and not its conceptual ‘other’.

However, the short-lived-only conceptualization sees the ephemeral set against, rather than containing, its perceived opposite: persistence or durability (Xu et al., 2016; Faik et al., 2020). Too rigid categorization accommodates excessively technical conceptual approaches to sociotechnical problems, whereby ‘ephemerality is perceived as a technical remedy’ for its perceived opposite (Morlok et al., 2018). Ephemerality is not merely ‘an artificial technical restriction’ (Morlok et al., 2017). Ephemerality-based IS research must necessarily address durability as constitutive of the ephemeral.

Unchallenged assumptions around the meaning of ephemeral result in a social media literature base that is user-centric, focusing on user characteristics, rationale, and experience in relation to ephemerality-based platforms at the expense of the ephemerality concept. Users, however, are very much ‘cogs in a machine’, and increasingly ‘part of the applications that emerge and disappear’ (Kreps & Kimppa, 2015). The behaviours and experiences of people should not be offset against ephemeral technical affordances but factored into conceptualisation of the ephemeral.

In conclusion, systems of people and technologies are reformulating the nature of the ephemeral. We suggest that the unstable ephemeral is not only short-lived, but also repetitive, recombinatory, and durable. In their organizational study of subjective time, Shipp and Jansen (2021) note the importance of ‘studying the past, present, and future simultaneously.’ The ephemeral as characterised here offers such an opportunity.

<footnote n="5">⁵ Notable exceptions include conceptual association of the ephemeral with malleability (Yoo, 2010; von Briel et al., 2018), editability (Kallinikos et al., 2010; 2013), fluidity (Lytinnen, 2021; Ahuja & Choudhury, 1999), and performance (Marabelli et al., 2016).</footnote>
## Acknowledgement

"This work was supported with the financial support of the Science Foundation Ireland grant 13/RC/2094 and co-funded under the European Regional Development Fund through the Southern & Eastern Regional Operational Programme to Lero - the Science Foundation Ireland Research Centre for Software (www.lero.ie)"

## References

1. Ahuja, M., Choudhury, V.: Evolution of Virtual Organizations Over Time: An Empirical Examination. AMCIS Proceedings. 209. (1999)

2. Alavi, M., Leidner, D. E.: Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly 25(1), 107-136 (2002)

3. Arda, B.: Ephemeral Social Media Visuals and Their Picturesque Design: Interaction and User Experience in Instagram Stories. Sapientiae, Film And Media Studies (19) 156-175. DOI: 10.2478/ausfm-2021-0010 (2021)

4. Armada, J.: Sustainable Ephemeral: Temporary Spaces with Lasting Impact. Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects. https://surface.syr.edu/honors_capstone/111 (2012)

5. Artaud, A. *Theatre and its Double*. Trans. M.C. Richards. (New York: Grove Press, 1958). (1938)

6. Artieri, G., Brilli, S., Zurovac, E.: Below the Radar: Private Groups, Locked Platforms, and Ephemeral Content—Introduction to the Special Issue. Social Media and Society. Sage. (2021)

7. Auslander, P. *Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture*. London: Routledge. (1999)

8. Bakker, R., DeFillippi, R., Schwab, A., Sydow, J.: Temporary Organizing: Promises, Processes, Problems. Organization Studies 1-17. DOI: 10.1177/0170840616655982. (2016)

9. Bauman, Z. (2000) *Liquid Modernity*. Cambridge: Polity Press

10. Barba, E.: ‘Efermaele: “That Which Will Be Said Afterwards”.’ The Drama Review 36.2 77-80. (1992)

11. Bardhi, F., Eckhardt, G.: Liquid Consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 44 DOI: 10.1093/jcr/ucx050 (2017)

12. Baudelaire, C.: *The Painter of Modern Life and Other Essays*. Trans. Mayne, J. Phaidon: London (1964)

13. Bayer, J. B., Ellison, N. B., Schoenebeck, S. Y., Falk, E. B.: Sharing the small moments: ephemeral social interaction on Snapchat. Information, Communication & Society 19 (7), 956-977. (2015)

14. Bechky, B.: Gaffers, Gofers, and Grips: Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations. Organization Science. Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 3-21 (2006)

15. Belanche, D., Cenjor, I., Pérez-Rueda, A.: Instagram Stories versus Facebook Wall: an advertising effectiveness analysis. Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC. Emerald Pub. (2019)

16. Benjamin, W. *Selected Writings, Vol 1, 1913-1926* (Ed. Bullock, M. & Jennings, M. (1996)). Harvard University Press. (1920/21)

17. Bergson, H.: *Time and Free Will*. George Allen and Unwin, New York. (1911/2005)

18. Bergson, H.: *Creative Evolution*. Random House Modern Library, New York. (1946/1992)

19. Berthon, P., Pitt, L., Parent, M., Berthon, J-P.: Aesthetics and Ephemerality: Observing and Preserving the Luxury Brand. California Management Review 52(1) University of California (2009)
20. Biraghi, S., Gambetti, R., Pace, S. Between tribes and markets: The emergence of a liquid consumer-entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research. Elsevier. (2018)

21. Bødker, M. "What else is there...?": reporting meditations in experiential computing. European Journal of Information Systems. 26(3), 274-286. doi:10.1057/s41303-017-0041-6 (2017)

22. Brassley, P. On the unrecognized significance of the ephemeral landscape. Landscape Research, 23(2), 119-132, DOI: 10.1080/01426399808706531 (1998)

23. Browne, O., O'Reilly, P., Hutchinson, M.: Ephemeral Returns: Social Network Valuations and Perceived Privacy. ICIS Proceedings. 10. (2017) http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2017/Economics/Presentations/10

24. Buci-Glucksmann, C.: *Esthétique de l'éphémère*, Paris, Galilée, quoted in: Denoit, N. (2014) "Showing Time": the Ephemeral Made Sublime. Hybrid [Online] DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/hybrid.1153 (2003, p.13)

25. Buci-Glucksmann, C.: Time spirals: from the immemorial to the ephemeral. Translator: Jonathan Pollock. http://dombis.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/CBG_Time-spirals.pdf (2012)

26. Buci-Glucksmann, C., Quinz, E.: "Ephemeral Heritages", For an Aesthetics of the Ephemeral. Interview with Christine Buci-Glucksmann. Trans. Heft, S. Hybrid, n° 1. (2014)

27. Burton-Jones, A., Butler, B., Scott, S., Xu, S. Next-Generation Information Systems Theorizing: A Call to Action. MIS Quarterly 45(1) pp.301-314 (2021)

28. Camacho, D., Lara-Cabrera, R., Merelo-Guervós et al.: From Ephemeral Computing to Deep Bioinspired Algorithms: New Trends and Applications. Future Generation Computer Systems (2018)

29. Cavalcanti, L. H. C., Pinto, A., Brubaker, J. R., Dombrowski, L. S.: Media, Meaning, and Context Loss in Ephemeral Communication Platforms: A Qualitative Investigation on Snapchat. In CSCW (pp. 1934-1945). https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998266 (2017)

30. Castells, M.: *The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture*. Oxford: UK, Blackwell. (1996/2010 (2nd ed.)

31. Castells, M.: 'Materials for an exploratory theory of the network society.' British Journal of Sociology 51(1). pp.5-24 (2000)

32. Castells, M.: Informationalism, networks, and the network society: a theoretical blueprint. In: *The network society: a cross-cultural perspective* (Ed. Castells, M.) Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. (2004)

33. Chen, A., Karahanna. E.: Life interrupted: the effects of technology-mediated work interruptions on work and nonwork outcomes. MIS Quarterly 42 (4), pp.1023-1042. (2018)

34. Chen, K-J., Cheung, H.: Unlocking the power of ephemeral content: The roles of motivations, gratification, need for closure, and engagement. Computers in Human Behavior. Elsevier. (2019)

35. Chia, R.: From Modern to Postmodern Organizational Analysis. Organization Studies. 16: 579 DOI: 10.1177/017084069501600406 (1995)

36. Chia, R., Nayak, A.: Circumventing the Logic and Limits of Representation: Otherness in East-West Approaches to Paradox. In: The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox (Eds.: Smith, W., Lewis, M., Jarzabkowski, J., Langley, A. Oxford University Press (2017)

37. Chun, W.: The Enduring Ephemeral, or the Future Is a Memory. Critical Inquiry, 35 (1) pp.148-171, The University of Chicago Press. (2008)

38. Chun, W.: *Updating to Remain the Same: Habitual New Media*. MIT Press. (2016)

39. Colfer, D.: The legacy of the ephemeral. Building Material, 22, Public, pp.207-214. Architectural Association of Ireland. (2019)
40. Conboy, K., Dennehy, D., O'Connor, M.: 'Big time': An examination of temporal complexity and business value in analytics. Information & Management. (2018)

41. Cotta, C., Fernandez-Leiva, A., et al.: Ephemeral Computing and Bioinspired Optimization, Challenges and Opportunities. In Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Computational Intelligence (IJCCI 2015), 1: ECTA, pp. 319-324 (2015)

42. Cotta, C., Fernandez-Leiva, A., et al.: Application Areas of Ephemeral Computing: A Survey. LNCS 9770, pp.153-167. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-53525-7 9Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg (2016)

43. Crane, S.: The Conundrum of Ephemerality: Time, Memory, and Museums. IN: A Companion to Museum Studies. Ed.: MacDonald, S. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. (2006)

44. Crane, S.: Rewriting the Battles of Algiers: Ephemeral Tactics in the City at War. Space and Culture, 18(4) pp.387-410. Sage Journals. (2015)

45. Crowther, T., Mac Cumhaill, C.: *Perceptual ephemera*. Oxford University Press. (2018)

46. Datry, T. et al.: Flow intermittence and ecosystem services in rivers of the Anthropocene. Journal of Applied Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12941 (2017)

47. Davies, R.: Digital Intimacies: Aesthetic and Affective Strategies in the Production and Use of Online Video. In: *Ephemeral Media: Transitory Screen Culture from Television to YouTube*. Palgrave Macmillan. (2011)

48. Dawson, P.: Reflections: On time, temporality and change in organizations. Journal of Change Management. 14: 285-308. (2014)

49. Deleuze, G.: *Difference and Repetition*. Trans. Paul Patton. London: Athlone (1994)

50. Denoit, N. "Showing Time": the Ephemeral Made Sublime. Hybrid [Online] DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/hybrid.1153 (2014)

51. Doane, M.A.: *The Emergence of Cinematic Time*. Harvard University Press. (2002)

52. Dong, R., Wu, H., Ni, S., Lu, T.: The nonlinear consequences of working hours for job satisfaction: The moderating role of job autonomy. Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.), 1-22. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02463-3 (2021)

53. Döring, T., Sylvester, A., Schmidt, A.: A Design Space for Ephemeral User Interfaces. Conference: TEI 2013. DOI: 10.1145/2460625.2460637 (2013)

54. Doyle, R., Conboy, K.: The role of IS in the covid-19 pandemic: A liquid-modern perspective. International Journal of Information Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102184 (2020)

55. Eckhardt, G., Bardhi, F.: The value in de-emphasizing structure in liquidity. Marketing Theory. 20(4) 573-580. Sage. (2020)

56. Elkjaer, B. Organizations as real and ephemeral. ZfW 40:53-68. DOI 10.1007/s40955-017-0086-0 (2017)

57. Evans, E-J.: 'Carnaby Street, 10 a.m.': Kate Modern and the Ephemeral Dynamics of Online Drama. In: *EPHEMERAL MEDIA: Transitory Screen Culture from Television to YouTube*. Palgrave Macmillan. (2011)

58. Fichman, R., Dos Santos, B., Zheng, Z.: Digital Innovation as a fundamental and powerful concept in the information systems curriculum. MIS Quarterly 38 (2), pp. 329-353 (2014)

59. Frisby, D.: *Fragments of modernity*. Cambridge. (1985)

60. Fuller, R., Summers, J.: The Impact of Virtual Team Consistency on Individual Performance and Perceptual Outcomes Over Time. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. (2017)

61. Gale, T.: Urban Beaches, Virtual Worlds and ‘The End of Tourism’, Mobilities, 4:1, 119-138, DOI: 10.1080/17450100802657996 (2009)
62. Garud, R., Simpson, B., Langley, A., Tsoukas, H.: How does novelty emerge? In: The Emergence of Novelty in Organizations. Perspectives on Process Organization Studies, 5. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 1-24. (2015)

63. Glennan, S.: Ephemeral Mechanisms and Historical Explanation. Erkenn. 72:251–266 DOI 10.1007/s10670-009-9203-9 (2010)

64. Giallorenzo, S., Montesi, F., Safina, L., Zingaro, S.P.: Ephemeral Data Handling in Microservices. IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC). DOI 10.1109/SCC.2019.00048 (2019)

65. Gibbs, M., Mengel, F., Siemroth, C.: Work from Home & Productivity: Evidence from Personnel & Analytics Data on IT Professionals. Becker Friedman Institute. University of Chicago. (2021)

66. Gisdakis, S., Manolopoulos, V., Tao, S., Rusu, A., Papadimitratos, P.: Secure and Privacy-Preserving Smartphone-Based Traffic Information Systems. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems. (2014)

67. Grainge, P.: *Ephemeral Media: Transitory Screen Culture from Television to YouTube*. Palgrave Macmillan (2011)

68. Grosz, E.: *Architecture from the Outside: Essays on Virtual and Real Space*. MIT Press. (2001)

69. Grosz, E.: Habit Today: Ravaisson, Bergson, Deleuze and Us. Body and Society 19 (2-3): 219. (2013)

70. Grudin, J.: Group Dynamics and Ubiquitous Computing. Communications of the ACM, 45(12), pp.74-78 (2001)

71. Guillaume, X., Huysmans, J.: The concept of ‘the everyday’: Ephemeral politics and the abundance of life. Cooperation and Conflict. Sage Journals. (2018)

72. Gunther McGrath, R.: The Pace of Technology Adoption is Speeding Up. Harvard Business Review. (2013)

73. Haber, B.: The digital ephemeral turn: queer theory, privacy, and the temporality of risk. Media, Culture & Society. Sage. (2019)

74. Harvey, D.: *The Condition of Postmodernity: an Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change*. Cambridge, Mass.:Blackwell. (1989)

75. Hastie, A.: Detritus and the Moving Image: Ephemera, Materiality, History. Journal of Visual Culture. Sage. 6(2): 171–174 [1470-4129] (2007)

76. He, D., Kivetz, R.: Blink and You'll Miss It: the Consequences of Ephemeral Messaging. In: NA - Advances in Consumer Research. Ed. Moreau, P. M., Puntoni. S. Duluth, MN, USA: Association for Consumer Research, pp.470-471 (2016)

77. He, Y., Xu, X., Huang, N., Hong, Y., Liu, D.: Preserving User Privacy Through Ephemeral Sharing Design: A Large-Scale Randomized Field Experiment in Online Dating. ICIS 2021 Proceedings. (2021)

78. Henry, R., Herzberg, A., Kate, A.: Blockchain Access Privacy: Challenges and Directions. Co-published by the IEEE Computer and Reliability Societies. (2018)

79. Heyman, J., Campbell, H.: The anthropology of global flows. Anthropological Theory. Sage. 9(2): 131–148 (2009)

80. Hindmarsh, J., Pilnick, A. Knowing Bodies at Work: Embodiment and Ephemeral Teamwork in Anaesthesia. Organization Studies, 28(09): 1395-1416 (2007)

81. Huang, K., Zhang, X., Mu, Y., Rezaeibagha, F., Du, X., Guizani, N.: Achieving Intelligent Trust-Layer for IoT via Self-Redactable Blockchain. DOI 10.1109/TII.2019.2943331, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics. (2018)

82. Husserl, E.: *Experience and Judgment, investigations in a genealogy of logic*. Northwestern University Press. (1948/1973)
83. Janssen, C., Vanhamme, J., Lindgreen, A., Lefebvre, C.: The Catch-22 of Responsible Luxury: Effects of Luxury Product Characteristics on Consumers' Perception of Fit with Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), pp.45-57. Springer (2014)

84. Jameson, F.: *Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism*. Duke University Press. (1991)

85. Kallinikos, J.: The Making of Ephemeria: On the Shortening Life Spans of Information. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Sciences, 4(3) Common Ground Publishing (2009)

86. Kallinikos, J., Aaltonen, A., Marton, A.: A Theory of Digital Objects. First Mondays (2010)

87. Kallinikos, J., Aaltonen, A., Marton, A.: The Ambivalent Ontology of Digital Artifacts. MIS Quarterly (37:2) pp.357-370 (2013)

88. Karlsson, M. Sjövaag, H. Content Analysis and Online News. Digital Journalism. DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2015.1096619 (2015)

89. Kaun, A., Stiernstedt, F.: Facebook time: Technological and institutional affordances for media memories. new media & society, 16(7) 1154–1168. Sage (2004)

90. Kavanagh, D., Lightfoot, G., Lilley, S.: Running to stand still: late modernity's acceleration fixation. Cult. Politics 3(1) 95–122. (2007)

91. Kelly, J.T. Beyond the Broadcast Text: New Economies and Temporalities of Online TV. IN: Grainge, P. (Ed.) *Ephemeral Media: Transitory Screen Culture from Television to YouTube*. Palgrave Macmillan (2011)

92. Kelly, T., Baron, J. The Rise of Ephemeral Messaging Apps in the Business World. The National Law Review. Vol XI, N. 249. (2021)

93. Kirby, M.: *The New Theatre: Performance Documentation*. New York University Press (1974)

94. Kirçova İ., Pınarbaşı F., Köşe Ş.G.: Understanding Ephemeral Social Media Through Instagram Stories: A Marketing Perspective. BMIJ, 8(2): 2173-2192 (2020)

95. Kompare, D.: ‘Flow to Files: Conceiving 21st Century Media’, Conference Paper, Media in Transition 2, Cambridge, MA, (2002)

96. Kotfila, C.: This Message Will Self-Destruct: The Growing Role of Obscurity and Self-Destructing Data in Digital Communication. Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology 40 (2), 12-16 (2014)

97. Kreps, DGP, Kimppa, K.: Theorising Web 3.0: ICTs in a changing society. Information Technology & People, 28 (4) pp.726-741. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-09-2015-0223 (2015)

98. Kreps, DGP., Rowe, F., Muirhead, J. Understanding Digital Events: process philosophy and causal autonomy. Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2020)

99. Lanzara, G.F.: Ephemeral organizations in extreme environments; Emergences, strategy, extinctions. Journal of Management Studies, 20(1), 71-95 (1983)

100. Lee, G., Saad, W., Bennis, M.: An Online Framework for Ephemeral Edge Computing in the Internet of Things. https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.08640. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2004.08640 (2020)

101. Lefebvre, H. *The Urban Revolution*. Trans. Bononno, R. (2003) University of Minnesota Press. (1970)

102. Lehmann, J., Recker, J.: Offerings that are “Ever-in-the-Making”: Post-Launch Continuous Digital Innovation in Late-Stage Entrepreneurial Ventures. ICIS 2019 Proceedings. 11. (2019)

103. Leonardi, P.M.: Digital Materiality? How artifacts without matter, matter. First Monday. (2010)

104. Lepani, K. Islands of Love, Islands of Risk: Culture and HIV in the Trobriands. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. (2012)
105. López-Bertran, M. Ephemeral Art. Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51726-1_2825-1 (2019)

106. López-Forniés, I., Sierra-Pérez, J.: Ephemeral Products: Opportunities for Circularity Based on Ideation for Reuse. An Experience. International Conference on Design, Simulation, Manufacturing: The Innovation Exchange ADM: Design Tools and Methods in Industrial Engineering II pp 365-372 (2021)

107. Lorino, P., Tricard, B., Clot, Y.: Research Methods for Non-Representational Approaches to Organizational Complexity: The Dialogical Mediated Inquiry. Organization Studies, 32(6), 769-801 (2011).

108. Lyytinen, K.: Innovation logics in the digital era: a systemic review of the emerging digital innovation regime. Innovation, DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2021.1938579 (2021)

109. Lyytinen, K., King, J. Nothing At The Center?: Academic Legitimacy in the Information Systems Field. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(6). DOI: 10.17705/1jais.00051 (2004)

110. MacCarthy, M.: Doing away with Doba? Women's Wealth and Shifting Values in Trobri-and Mortuary Distributions. In: SINUOUS OBJECTS, Revaluing Women's Wealth in the Contemporary Pacific (Eds: Hermkens, A-K., Lepani, K.). Australian National University Press. (2017)

111. Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A.: Hidden patterns of knowledge evolution in fluid digital innovation. Innovation. DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2021.1879653 (2021)

112. Marabelli, M., Newell, S., Galliers, R.: The Materiality of Impression Management in Social Media Use: A focus on Time, Space and Algorithms. Thirty Seventh International Conference on Information Systems. (2016)

113. Marcus, G., Saka, E.: Assemblage. Theory, Culture & Society. Sage Publishing. (2006)

114. McPeak, A.: Self-Destruct Apps: Spoliation by Design? Akron Law Review, 51(3) (2017)

115. McRoberts, S., Ma, H., Hall, A., Yarosh, S.: Share First, Save Later: Performance of Self through Snapchat Stories CHI 2017, May 06-11, Denver, CO, USA (2017)

116. Merleau-Ponty, M.: *The Visible and the Invisible*. Northwestern University Press. (1968)

117. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. (2022) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ephemeral.

118. Moran, D.: Edmund Husserl's Phenomenology of Habituality and Habitus. Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, vol. 42. (2011)

119. Morlok, T., Schneider, K., Matt, C., and Hess, T.: Snap. Share. (Don't) Care? Ephemerality, Privacy Concerns, and the Use of Ephemeral Social Network Sites. Proceedings of Twenty-third Americas Conference on Information Systems (2017)

120. Morlok, T., Constantiou, I., and Hess, T.: Gone for better or for worse? Exploring the dual nature of ephemerality on social media platforms. ECIS Completed Research Papers. Paper 15. (2018)

121. Mousavi Baygi, R., Introna, L. D., Hultin, L.: Everything Flows: Studying Continuous Socio-Technological Transformation in a Fluid and Dynamic Digital World. MIS Quarterly 45(1) (2021)

122. Mueller, R.: Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf (2019)

123. Muñoz, J.E.: Ephemera as Evidence: Introductory Notes to Queer Acts. Women & Performance: a journal of feminist theory, 8:2, 5-16, DOI: 10.1080/07407709608571228 (1996)

124. Nayak, A.: On the Way to Theory: A Processual Approach. Organization Studies, 29(2), 173-190 (2008)

125. Niederman, F., Brancheau, J., Wetherbe, J.: Information Systems Management Issues for the 1990s. MIS Quarterly (1991)
126. Orlikowski, W. J., and Scott, S. V.: Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1) 433-474 (2008)

127. Osborne, P. & Charles, M.: Walter Benjamin. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/benjamin/ (2020)

128. *Oxford English Dictionary* (OED) Oxford: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press (2004)

129. Phelan, P.: *Unmarked: The Politics of Performance*. London: Routledge (1993)

130. Pimlott, H.: ‘Eternal ephemera’ or the durability of ‘disposable literature’: The power and persistence of print in an electronic world. Media, Culture & Society 33(4) 515–530 (2011)

131. Prado, P., Sapsed. J.: The Anthropophagic Organization: How Innovations Transcend the Temporary in a Project-Based Organization. Organization Studies 37(12) pp.1793–1818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616655491 (2016)

132. Prester, J., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Schlagwein, D.: Becoming a Digital Nomad: Decentered Identity Work Along Agentic Lines. 11th International Process Symposium (2019)

133. Purpura, A.: Framing the Ephemeral. African Arts. 42 (3): 11–15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/afar.2009.42.3.11 (2009)

134. Quintarelli, E., Rabosio, E., Tanca, L.: Efficiently using contextual influence to recommend new items to ephemeral groups. Information Systems, 84, 197-213 (2019)

135. Reason, M.: *Documentation, Disappearance, and the Representation of Live Performance*. Palgrave Macmillan (2006)

136. Robey, D., & Boudreau, M.: Accounting for the contradictory organizational consequences of information technology: Theoretical directions and methodological implications. Information Systems Research, 10, 167-185. doi:10.5539/mas.v6n4p49 (1999)

137. Rogers, E. M.: *Diffusion of Innovations*. New York: Free Press. (1995)

138. Rohr, K., Furlong, K.: Ephemeral plate tectonics at the Queen Charlotte triple junction. Geology 23(11) pp.1035–1038 (1995)

139. Rosa, H.: *Social acceleration : a new theory of modernity*. New York: Columbia University Press. (2013)

140. Rosa, H. Resonance. A Sociology of Our Relationship to the World. Trans. J. Wagner, Cambridge: Polity (2019)

141. Salovaara, A., Tuunainen, V.: Mediated Sharing as Software Developers' Strategy to Manage Ephemeral Knowledge. ECIS Completed Research Papers. Paper 158 (2015)

142. Sandberg, J., Holmström, J., & Lyytinen, K.: Digitization and phase transitions in platform organizing logics: Evidence from the process automation industry. MIS Quarterly, 44(1), 129–153. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2020/14520 (2020)

143. Sarker, S., Sahay, S.: Understanding Virtual Team Development: An Interpretive Study. Journal of the Association for Information Systems (4) (2003)

144. Sawyer, K. *Social Emergence*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (2005)

145. Schieffelin, E.L.: ‘Problematising performance’. In: Ritual, Performance, Media, London (Hughes Freeland, R. (ed.)). Routledge, pp. 194–207 (1998)

146. Schlesinger, A., E. Chandrasekharan, C. A. Masden, A. S. Bruckman, W. K. Edwards, R., Grinter. E.: Situated Anonymity: Impacts of Anonymity, Ephemerality, and Hyper-Locality on Social Media. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, USA. (2017)

147. Schneider, S. & Foot, K.: The web as an object of study. Sage. new media & society 6(1) 114–122 DOI: 10.1177/1461444804039912 (2004)

148. SEJ.com (www.searchenginejournal.com): R.I.P. to the Top 10 Failed Social Media Sites. Accessed online 05.05.2022 at: https://www.searchenginejournal.com/failed-social-media-sites/303421/#close (2019)

149. Shein, E.: Ephemeral data. Communications of the ACM. 56 (9) pp.20-22 DOI: (2013)
150. Shipp, A., Jansen, K.: The “other” time: a review of the subjective experience of time in organisations. *Academy of Management Annals*. 15 (1) 299–334. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0142 (2021)

151. Siegel, M.: *At the Vanishing Point: A Critic Looks at Dance*. New York: Saturday Review Press (1972)

152. Simmel, G.: *The philosophy of money*. London: Routledge. (1900/2004)

153. Smith, H. J., Dinev, T., Xu, H.: Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review. *MIS Quarterly* 35 (4), 989-1016 (2011)

154. Sydow, J.: *Temporary Organizing – The End of Organizations as We Know Them?* Rutgers Business Review 2(2) (2017)

155. Taylor, D.: *The Archive and the Repertoire*. Duke University Press. (2007)

156. Toda, M. The urge theory of emotion and social interaction. Unpublished manuscript. Chukyo University. (1999)

157. Tropp, J., Baetzgen, A.: Users’ Definition of Snapchat Usage. Implications for Marketing on Snapchat. *International Journal on Media Management*, 21:2, 130-156 (2019)

158. Tsoukas, H.: Don't Simplify, Complexify: From Disjunctive to Conjunctive Theorizing in Organization and Management Studies. *Journal of Management Studies*. 54 (2) (2016)

159. Uricchio, W. The Recurrent, the Recombinatory and the Ephemeral. IN: Grainge, P. (Ed.) *Ephemeral Media: Transitory Screen Culture from Television to YouTube*. Palgrave Macmillan. (2011) AND: MANUSCRIPT VERSION AT: https://web.mit.edu/uricchio/Pubic/pdfs/pdfs/The%20Recurrent.pdf

160. Urquhart, C., Vaast, E.: Building Social Media Theory From Case Studies: A New Frontier for IS Research. Thirty Third International Conference on Information Systems (2012)

161. Urry, J.: *Consuming Places*. Routledge (1995)

162. Urry, J. *Sociology beyond societies: mobilities for the twenty-first century*. Routledge (2000/2012)

163. Utz, S., Muscanell, N., Khalid, C.: Snapchat elicits more jealousy than Facebook: a comparison of Snapchat and Facebook use. *Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking* 18 (3), 141-146. (2015)

164. Vaast, E., Boland, R., Davidson, E., Pawlowski, S., Schultze, U.: Investigating the "Knowledge" in Knowledge Management: A Social Representations Perspective. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 17(15) DOI: 10.17705/ICAIS.01715 (2006)

165. Ven, A. H. van de, and Poole, M. S.: Explaining Development and Change in Organizations. *The Academy of Management Review*, 20, no. 3 (1995)

166. van Marrewijk, A., Ybema, S., Smits, K., Clegg, S., Pitsis, T.: Clash of the Titans: Temporal Organizing and Collaborative Dynamics in the Panama Canal Megaproject. *Organization Studies*, 37(12) 1745–1769 (2016)

167. van Nimwegen, C., Bergman, K.: Effects on cognition of the burn after reading principle in ephemeral media applications. *Behaviour & Information Technology* (2019)

168. Vázquez-Herrero, J., Direito-Rebollal, S., López-García, X.: Ephemeral Journalism: News Distribution Through Instagram Stories. *Social Media + Society*. Sage Publishing (2019)

169. Vera, F., & Mehrotra, R.: *Temporary Flows & Ephemeral Cities*. Room One Thousand, 3. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/18f9p6np (2015)

170. Vidal-Abarca, M.R., Gómez, R., Sánchez-Montoya, M., Arce, M., Nicolás, N., Suárez, M.: Defining Dry Rivers as the Most Extreme Type of Non-Perennial Fluvial Ecosystems. *Sustainability* 2020, 12, 7202; doi:10.3390/su12177202 (2020)

171. Villaespesa, E., Wowkowych, S.: Ephemeral Storytelling With Social Media: Snapchat and Instagram Stories at the Brooklyn Museum. *Sage. Social Media + Society* 1(13)
172. vom Brocke, J., Winter, R., Hevner, A., Maedche, A.: Special Issue Editorial – Accumulation and Evolution of Design Knowledge in Design Science Research: A Journey Through Time and Space. Journal of the Association for Information Systems (2021)

173. von Briel, F., Recker, J., Davidsson, P.: Not all digital venture ideas are created equal: Implications for venture creation processes. Journal of Strategic Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2018.06.002 (2018)

174. Wakefield, L., Wakefield, R.: Anxiety and Ephemeral Social Media Use in Negative eWOM Creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing 41, pp.44–59 (2018)

175. Webster, J., Watson, R.: Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly 26 (2) pp. xiii-xxiii (2002)

176. Welsh, S.: Ephemerality as Data Prevention: Values for an Ethics of Ephemeral Mobile Media. Mobile Media & Communication 1–17. Sage. (2020)

177. Williams, R.: Television: Technology and Cultural Form. London: Fontana. (1974)

178. Xu, B., Chang, P., Welker, C., Bazarova, N., Cosley, D.: Automatic Archiving versus Default Deletion: What Snapchat Tells Us About Ephemerality in Design. CSCW Conf Computer Support Coop Work. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018. (2018)

179. Yongguang, Z. et al. Characteristics and factors controlling the development of ephemeral gullies in cultivated catchments of black soil region, Northeast China. Soil and Tillage Research. 96, 1–2, pp. 28-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2007.02.010 (2007)

180. Yoo, Y. Computing in Everyday Life: A Call for Research on Experiential Computing. MIS Quarterly 34(2): 213-231 (2010)

181. Young, T.G.: Evidence: Toward a library definition of ephemera. RBM A Journal of Rare Books Manuscripts and Cultural Heritage 4(1) DOI: 10.5860/rbm.4.1.214 (2003)

182. Zuckerberg, M.: A Privacy-Focused Vision For Social Networking. https://m.facebook.com/nt/screen/?params=%7B%22note_id%22%3A2420600258234172%7D&path=%2Fnotes%2Fnote%2F&refsrc=deprecated (Retrieved online 11.10.2021)

183. Zurcher, L. Social-Psychological Functions of Ephemeral Roles: A Disaster Work Crew. Human Organization 27(4) pp. 281-297. Society for Applied Anthropology (Winter 1968)