# Promoting innovation for rural and urban territories: an exploration of an international meta-organisation of collaborative spaces

Costantino Romeo

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

## To cite this version:

Costantino Romeo. Promoting innovation for rural and urban territories: an exploration of an international meta-organisation of collaborative spaces. R&D Management, 2023, Séville, Spain. hal-05318700

HAL Id: hal-05318700

https://hal.science/hal-05318700v1

Submitted on 17 Oct 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published 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>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Promoting innovation for rural and urban territories: an exploration of an international meta-organisation of collaborative spaces

Costantino Romeo (i3-CRG, École polytechnique, CNRS, Institut polytechnique de Paris, Palaiseau ; PSB)

## Abstract

The current research questions how meta-organisation of collaborative spaces may reduce innovation gaps between rural and urban areas. For this purpose, the emergent role played by collaborative spaces in local development surfaces the cooperation among initiatives located in diverse areas. By using a qualitative approach, the exploration took place within the headquarter of a cross-national association of creative hubs. The main findings emphasise the evolution of the association which has been able to seize their relation capital to be less dependent on their members, and to gain resources on its own through project funded by public institutions. In so doing, the meta-organisation turned into an implicit agent of public institutions capable to gain and distribute resources to both members and partners, mainly not creative hubs.

## 1. Introduction

Over the past few years, collaborative spaces (CSs) have expanded to reach peripheral and rural areas (Akhavan, Mariotti, and Rossi 2022; Capdevila 2023; Vogl and Akhavan 2022): contrary to the pioneering waves (Gandini and Cossu 2019) which had regarded mainly urban contexts (Merkel 2015). Furthermore, these spaces are unique in that they interact with the socioeconomic contexts in which they are located (Vogl and Akhavan 2022). As a result, the proliferation of diverse CSs enhances the complexity of this phenomenon to the extent that even the term "collaborative space" encompasses various initiatives depending on the organisations behind CSs (Fabbri 2016; Scaillerez and Tremblay 2017). However, such
heterogeneity has not prevented CSs to converge into collective actions through specific
associations across the territories (Garnier, Fernandez, and Puel 2018).

By putting emphasis on the relationships established by CSs at international level, the present research is a preliminary exploration aiming to understand how meta-organisation may support the activities of emerging initiatives of socioeconomic development.

## 2. Literature review

Given the complexity of the phenomenon, CSs have been defined in multiple ways depending on the features highlighted by their observers (Bouncken and Reuschl 2018). For the purpose of the present research, we take into account creative hubs (CHs) which are manifestations of collaborative spaces (Pratt 2021). In a report released in 2017 by the British Council, Dovey at al. defined a creative hub as 'a place, either physical or virtual, which brings creative people together. It is a convenor, providing space and support for networking, business development and community engagement within the creative, cultural and tech sectors' (Dovey et al. 2016, p. 7). Similarly to other nuances of CSs, the diffusion of CHs raises questions to scholars: for instance, acknowledging that the colocation of heterogeneous actors, does not necessarily accomplish their promise of development through collaboration (Spinuzzi 2012). Besides the hype around CSs, their presence necessarily raises their demand of legitimacy and resources to promote their activities (Gill, Pratt, and Virani 2019). In other words, it seems that CHs do not rely only on their local contexts to recover both the material and immaterial resources needed (Bell and Jayne 2010; Avdikos and Merkel 2020).

The significance of the aforementioned assets may spontaneously lead CHs to engage within sectorial associations (Garnier, Fernandez, and Puel 2018). Whereas such associations have
taken diverse forms understanding how organisations that support CHs converge in overarching organisations may contribute to understand the role of meta-organisations (Ahrne and Brunsson 2005; Gulati, Puranam, and Tushman 2012) in developing CHs across Europe. As previously emphasized, the increasing presence of collaborative spaces in peripheral areas adds a further level of complexity, as such meta-organisations may support initiatives, especially those ones in rural areas, that are geographically isolated (Capdevila 2023; Akhavan, Mariotti, and Rossi 2022) and so contributing to distribute resources despite the existing territorial gaps.

The term ‘meta-organisation’ is a concept that refers to two main research strands. Whereas the so-call ‘European School’ (Berkowitz and Dumez 2016) defines meta-organisations as decided social orders (Ahrne and Brunsson 2005), Gulati et al. (2012) put emphasis on organisational designs, including those with informal ties, emerging by collective actions undertaken by organisations sharing common system-level goals. Although overarching associations of organisations are not new phenomena (for instance, industrial associations, international sport federations, the European Union, and so on), interpreting those initiatives through the theoretical framework of meta-organisations allows scholars to understand their growing importance in management studies (Hervé Dumez and Renou 2020). Research has already shown the relevance of meta-organisations to the extent that they are functional for reducing uncertainties of their members’ environments (Ahrne and Brunsson 2005).

Furthermore, meta-organisations has been relevant as a result of their acknowledgement of their potential intermediary roles: for instance, organisations take collective actions to build identity (Laviolette et al. 2022) and establish legitimacy in front of institutional actors (Laurent et al. 2020). Given that the process of building a meta-organisation is «based on the coordination, negotiation, and realization of member organizations’ practices and
involvement» (Saniossian, Lecocq, and Beaucourt 2022, 28), Sanniossan at el. show a three-stage process that eventually allows the meta-organisation to be formally independent with specific resources. In so doing, after a preliminary stage aiming to recruit members around predominant interests, the following phases turn the informal group into a formalised association. According to the authors, the aforementioned ways to undertake collective actions (Gulati, Puranam, and Tushman 2012) create the conditions to structure the boundaries into decided social orders (Ahrne and Brunsson 2005).

Lastly, the intermediary role of meta-organisation also states their capacity to gain and distribute resources to their members (Sheldon, Della Torre, and Nacamulli 2019). For the purposes of present research, meta-organisations may be a mean that dispersed CSs seize in order to translate their particular knowledge for their own benefits and to reach industry-level goals at the same time (Valente and Oliver 2018). Moreover, the proliferation of CHs can be considered a substantial contribution to their local development (D'Ovidio and Pacetti 2019). From a geographical standpoint, the dispersal of these spaces emphasizes the importance of participation in broader initiatives, at varied territorial scales or purposes, which may take diverse organizational forms (Garnier, Fernandez, and Puel 2018; Capdevila forthcoming; Sheldon, Della Torre, and Nacamulli 2019).

To the best of our knowledge, research has almost neglected how meta-organisations of CSs may reduce territorial gaps between core and rural areas. Despite handful scholars have been interest in exploring entrepreneurial ecosystems or innovation clusters through the framework of meta-organisations (Kretschmer et al. 2022; Roundy and Bayer 2019; Lupova-Henry, Blili, and Dal Zotto 2021), CHs require particular consideration (Autio et al. 2018) to the extent that they are emergent agglomeration in search of both legitimacy and resources.
For the reasons, this preliminary study explores the case of one international network of CSs
aiming to build ties throughout the European Union and neighbouring countries. Precisely,
the research questions how such meta-organisation exchanges resources to foster innovation
between their members such as peripheral and urban CHs.

3. Description of the case study: an international organisation of CSs

Our case study is an international meta-organisation established in 2016 with the mission to foster the creative, economic, and social effects of hubs are Europe and neighbouring countries. Since its foundation, the association has grown to encompass nearly 300 organization members. Recently, the management of the association turned into additional activities, such as the development of cultural projects, which required to increment the number of people employed at the headquarter.

Despite the limitations forecasted by Berkowitz and Dumez (2016) regarding exploring meta-
organisations through qualitative approaches, the data collected were abstracted in order to
develop a preliminary description of the phenomena under investigation (Dumez 2016). In so
doing, we collected data through semi-structured interviews with the members of the staff
during a 2-weeks fieldwork spent at the headquarter of the meta-organisation, during which
we took also ethnographic notes; we also accessed to supplementary paper and digital
documentary resources to gain a general picture of the meta-organisation.

4. Research findings

4.1. Seizing the relational capital to turning the meta-organisation into an autonomous
organisation

Through the legitimacy acquired within the European cultural sector, the meta-organisation
has gone further their initial purpose of being just an association of CHs. Besides being
representative of their members in front of the public institutions and across different industries; the board of the meta-organisation was aware of the resources needed to support its existence, so the management undertook diverse activities. For this reason, the participation to European-funded projects ensures the streams of financial resources complementing the annual fees paid by the members. To carry out those projects, the management hired seven project coordinators, whose responsibilities consist of coordinating, executing, and reporting the operations to be done according to the grant agreements signed between funding institutions and the partners involved within those projects.

The two focal activities – being just 'an organisation of organisations and the participation to funded projects - surfaced how the participants distinguished the ties with other entities:

* the 'members' are those creative hubs who has joined the network.

* the 'partners' collaborate with the meta-organisation within the scope of the projects.

Indeed, such distinction originates from the way the meta-organisation seizes its relations to gain financial value. Despite the number of creative hubs has increased in the past years, the periodical fee paid by each organisation member for legitimising the meta-organisation seems not to be enough. Therefore, engaging with diverse partners – such as SMEs, municipalities, universities, research centres, and so on – allow the association to gain additional financial resources through the funding projects. Whereas the meta-organisation provides its members with representation and support in return for legitimacy and resources, it seems that the management has been aware that the centrality of the meta-organisation requires a structure apart from its members. In other words, the evolution of the meta-organisation marks a path towards being an autonomous organisation (Saniossian, Lecocq, and Beaucourt 2022) able to supply financial sustainability on its own.
The distinction between members and partners reproduces the division of tasks within the headquarter of the meta-organisation. In other words, each employee plays the pivotal role of serving as a touchpoint connecting the meta-organisation with both its affiliated members and non-sectorial partners. On one hand, one community manager oversees the ties with the members that has joined (or are willing to join) the network; on the other hand, the aforementioned project officers are responsible for the development of the projects in coordination with the partners.

Compared with the one and only community manager in charge of engaging with the collaborative spaces, the higher presence of project officers reflects how the meta-organisation develops alternative ways to gain and distribute resources through its relational capital. Being a cross-national association still assigns the meta-organisation a representative legitimacy aiming to build advocacy for CHs in front of funding institutions. In so doing, the original scope of building relationships among several CHs among Europe has facilitated the organisation to operate as orchestrator once they started dealing with partners whose purposes do not necessarily belong to the creative industry. In other words, building inter-organisational partnerships have been interpreted as the natural evolution of the initial networking activities probably due to the nature of value creation through building relationships.

## 4.2 Taking on an intermediary role to gain and distribute resources.

Such growing commitment to project development turned the meta-organisation an agent capable of acquiring and distributing resources to their partners, not necessarily CHs. As a matter of fact, being a representative of hundreds of members assigns the association the required recognition in front of the bureaucracy of the European Union. Given that CSs have
reached out even peripheral areas, the meta-organisations may play a significant role because in making European cultural policies effective. Such emerging crucial position of the meta-organisation may be – either directly or indirectly – beneficial to the CHs scattered throughout diverse territories. Although the membership not necessarily assign any privilege to participate to projects; however, the interviewees reported some benefits in helping their members to engage with partners outside of the meta-organisations.

From a financial perspective, monetary resources emerged as one of the main needs concerning CHs of the meta-organisation. Indeed, the annual membership fee is not flat because each organisation contributes according to its size (the categories are small, medium, or big CHs) which is measured according to self-declared annual revenue. Interestingly, this revenue-based differentiation surfaced that most of the members of the meta-organisation earn less than 150,000 € per year. The composition of the members puts emphasis on a phenomenon mainly made of small-sized organisations in search of financial support to make their initiatives sustainable. In so doing, the meta-organisation takes on a twofold meaning: from one hand, it emerges as a support reference for CHs in search of resources; to the other hand, the meta-organisation facilitates the transactions among the participants to satisfy their members' requests and the system-level goals at the same time (Gulati, Puranam, and Tushman 2012).

In so doing, the gap between rural and urban CHs is evident to the extent that peripheral CSs cannot take advantage of the benefits of agglomeration economies (Coll-Martínez and Méndez-Ortega 2020; Bathelt, Malmberg, and Maskell 2004; Jakonen et al. 2017) and they may be more likely to rely on the meta-organisation in order to gain the necessary resources for their own spaces. In so doing, the importance of financial funds underlines the autonomy of partners to develop their peculiar projects. Moreover, being a member may require an
investment of organisational resources to gain a return in terms of knowledge. Indeed, the
stream of financial funds coming from the projects are reinvested by the meta-organisation
into activities that aiming to engage the whole networks. Besides the annual meetups useful
to strengthen the ties among members, organisations may take participate to several learning
programs that allow CHs (or their respective users) to exchange knowledge. According to the
interviewees such activities may potentially enhance capacities of the members to the extent
that they set up the conditions for fostering innovation. In other words, the meta-organisation
does not offer direct technical equipment because their mainly perform a brokerage role for
those CHs interested in exchanging the required skills or knowledge to develop innovation
among their ecosystems. As a matter of fact, the meta-organisation recently introduced
additional mobility programs to encourage managers, staff members, or creative users which
fully funds residencies for upskilling professional experiences.

Lastly, the commitment to projects with external stakeholders broadened the scope of the
meta-organisation: in so doing, both research and policy-making activities have been
mentioned as additional opportunities for members who are willing to accomplish innovation
goals. Whereas the connection with researchers and academics may disclose further
opportunities for those CHs who are interested in being supported by scientific professionals;
policy-making trainings allow members to translate the initial legitimacy function of the meta-
organisation to advocate the importance of CHs to economic or societal issues, such as
inclusion, green transition, and skills development.

**5. Discussion**

Despite the preliminary stage of the present exploration, research findings lay the groundwork
for interesting further development.
The existence of two core activities enhances the evolution of the case study: from being dependent on their members (Ahrne and Brunsson 2005), the meta-organisation has evolved into an association capable to find resources on its own (Saniossian, Lecocq, and Beaucourt 2022). Such double focal point enhances the existence of two complementary subunits that have not surfaced conflictual elements. Moreover, that twofold activity emphasises distinct perspectives: whereas the involvement of members underlines the idea of an association which establishes long-term relationships based on the identification of CHs; yet the legitimacy gained through its representative function allows the meta-organisation to develop temporary or short-term projects with external partners.

The growing presence of CHs in peripheral areas parallels the commitment of rural-based hubs to the meta-organisation. The intervention of the overarching association mainly regards their capacity to collect resources to reinforce the role of hubs within the creative industries. Their emergent role of being an implicit agent of European cultural policies reinforces their capacity to reduce the divide between rural and urban areas to the extent the meta-organisation shall engage their peripheral members. As stated through its official communication content, the meta-organisation supports its members through mobility programs, knowledge exchange activities, capacity building initiatives, research commitment, and networking events. In other words, the role of the meta-organisation does not directly impact on innovation even if the support activities may help CHs to reduce territorial gaps through the enforcement of ties. However, the operations undertaken to support their members, combined to the participation to projects, may provide a suitable mix of factors for fostering innovation across heterogeneous territories.

Following Ahrne and Brunsson' (2005) insights regarding the similarities between meta-organisations and their members, the ways our case study seizes its relational capital in order
to create value resemble what the hubs usually do. In other words, the coordination of
resources provided by the meta-organisation mainly impacts on the stakeholders looking
outwards their organisations to reach their innovation goals as may be the case of smaller or
peripheral collaborative spaces (Capdevila forthcoming; Rundel, Salemink, and Strijker 2020;
Avdikos and Merkel 2020; Bell and Jayne 2010).

## 6. Conclusions and future research avenues

As mentioned above, the present working paper is a preliminary study of one meta-organisation of CSs that requires further refinement of data analysis, stronger theoretical support, and further data collection activity. In so doing, future efforts will consider three aspects that have not been developed yet:

* **Researching within one meta-organisation.** Given the international nature of the selected meta-organisation, it has not been possible to reach out all the five members of the management board, representative of as many CHs) who are scattered all over Europe. Moreover, our exploration is limited to the verbal statements provided by the employees of the meta-organisation who mainly coordinate the executive operations with heterogeneous stakeholders. In other words, the research has not yet considered a significative sample of CHs, also members of the meta-organisation, to understand how the resources mobilised through the overarching organisations have practical consequences in terms of knowledge sharing, learning programs, and technological equipment. From a geographical standpoint, further research will consider not only similarities or differences between rural and urban areas within the same countries or region since the medium-term purpose aims to compare cases across different national contexts as well.
* **Researching across meta-organisations.** The meta-organisation may be compared with equivalent collective actors committed to build legitimacy and gaining resources to the CHs. In other words, future research may repeat the process explained in the previous point to build a further comparison between meta-organisations marked with different characteristics in terms of structures and actions undertake by the management of the organisation members or meta-organisations.

* From a methodological perspective, future research avenue may consider the application of the qualitative comparative methodology (Ragin 2000). Whereas qualitative research enables to explore the complexity of phenomena, quantitative methods may allow the generalisation of results (Berkowitz and Dumez 2016). Moreover, qualitative comparative approach determines how different combinations of organisational factors result in the phenomena under observation. For instance, different conditions (for example, geographical or organisational factors) both within and across meta-organisations may determine similarities or differences marking diverse paths to overcome innovation gaps between rural and urban areas.
Bibliography

Ahrne, G., and N. Brunsson. 2005. 'Organizations and Meta-Organizations'. *Scandinavian Journal of Management* 21 (4 SPEC. ISS.): 429–49. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2005.09.005.

Akhavan, Mina, Ilaria Mariotti, and Federica Rossi. 2022. 'The Rise of Coworking Spaces in Peripheral and Rural Areas in Italy'. *Territorio* 97 (February): 35–42. doi:10.3280/tr2021-097-Supplement00a12925.

Autio, Erkko, Satish Nambisan, Llewellyn D.W. Thomas, and Mike Wright. 2018. 'Digital Affordances, Spatial Affordances, and the Genesis of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems'. *Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal* 12 (1): 72–95. doi:10.1002/sej.1266.

Avdikos, Vasilis, and Janet Merkel. 2020. 'Supporting Open, Shared and Collaborative Workspaces and Hubs: Recent Transformations and Policy Implications'. *Urban Research & Practice* 13 (3). Routledge: 348–57. doi:10.1080/17535069.2019.1674501.

Bathelt, Harald, Anders Malmberg, and Peter Maskell. 2004. 'Clusters and Knowledge: Local Buzz, Global Pipelines and the Process of Knowledge Creation'. *Progress in Human Geography* 28 (1). SAGE Publications Ltd: 31–56. doi:10.1191/0309132504ph469oa.

Bell, David, and Mark Jayne. 2010. 'The Creative Countryside: Policy and Practice in the UK Rural Cultural Economy'. *Journal of Rural Studies* 26 (3): 209–18. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.01.001.

Berkowitz, H., and H. Dumez. 2016. 'The Concept of Meta-Organization: Issues for Management Studies'. *European Management Review* 13 (2): 149–56. doi:10.1111/emre.12076.

Bouncken, Ricarda B., and Andreas J. Reuschl. 2018. 'Coworking-Spaces: How a Phenomenon of the Sharing Economy Builds a Novel Trend for the Workplace and for Entrepreneurship'. *Review of Managerial Science* 12 (1): 317–34. doi:10.1007/s11846-016-0215-y.

Capdevila, Ignasi. 2023. 'Building Communities in Rural Coworking Spaces'. In *Open Labs and the Dynamics of Communities. New Perspectives in the Knowledge Economy*, edited by Valerie Merindol and David W. Versailles. London: Routledge.

Coll-Martínez, Eva, and Carles Méndez-Ortega. 2020. 'Agglomeration and Coagglomeration of Co-Working Spaces and Creative Industries in the City'. *European Planning Studies*, November, 1–22. doi:10.1080/09654313.2020.1847256.

Dumez, Herve. 2016. *Comprehensive Research: A Methodological and Epistemological Introduction to Qualitative Research*. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.

Dumez, Hervé, and Sandra Renou. 2020. *How Business Organizes Collectively*. Edward Elgar Publishing. doi:10.4337/9781839106682.

Fabbri, Julie. 2016. 'Les espaces de coworking : ni tiers-lieux, ni incubateurs, ni Fab Labs'. *Entreprendre & Innover* n° 31 (4): 8–16. doi:10.3917/entin.031.0008.

Gandini, Alessandro, and Alberto Cossu. 2019. 'The Third Wave of Coworking: "Neo-Corporate" Model Versus "Resilient" Practice'. *European Journal of Cultural Studies* 24 (2): 430–47. doi:10.1177/1367549419886060.

Garnier, Constance, Valérie Fernandez, and Gilles Puel. 2018. 'The Influence of Network Membership in the Locally Anchored Activities: An International Perspective of the FabLabs'. In *Neuvièmes Journées Du Groupe Thématique Innovation de l'AIMS*, 1–27.

Gill, Rosalind, Andy C. Pratt, and Tarek E. Virani, eds. 2019. *Creative Hubs in Question: Place, Space and Work in the Creative Economy*. 1st ed. 2019. Dynamics of Virtual Work.
Cham: Springer International Publishing: Imprint: Palgrave Macmillan.
doi:10.1007/978-3-030-10653-9.

Gulati, Ranjay, P. Puranam, and M. Tushman. 2012. 'Meta-Organization Design: Rethinking Design in Interorganizational and Community Contexts'. *Strategic Management Journal* 33 (6): 571–86. doi:10.1002/smj.1975.

Jakonen, Mikko, Nina Kivinen, Perttu Salovaara, and Piia Hirkman. 2017. 'Towards an Economy of Encounters? A Critical Study of Affectual Assemblages in Coworking'. *Scandinavian Journal of Management* 33 (4): 235–42. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2017.10.003.

Kretschmer, T., A. Leiponen, M. Schilling, and G. Vasudeva. 2022. 'Platform Ecosystems as Meta-Organizations: Implications for Platform Strategies'. *Strategic Management Journal* 43 (3): 405–24. doi:10.1002/smj.3250.

Laurent, A., P. Garaudel, G. Schmidt, and P. Eynaud. 2020. 'Civil Society Meta-Organizations and Legitimating Processes: The Case of the Addiction Field in France'. *Voluntas* 31 (1): 19–38. doi:10.1007/s11266-019-00094-8.

Laviolette, E.M., S. Arcand, L.M. Cloutier, and L. Renard. 2022. 'Same but Different: Meta-Organization and Collective Identity Dynamics'. *Management (France)* 25 (2): 45–59. doi:10.37725/mgmt.v25.4228.

Lupova-Henry, E., S. Blili, and C. Dal Zotto. 2021. 'Innovation-Centric Cluster Business Model: Findings from a Design-Oriented Literature Review'. *Triple Helix* 84 (2): 1–48. doi:10.1163/21971927-BJA10012.

Merkel, Janet. 2015. 'Coworking in the City'. *Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization* 15 (1): 121–39.

Ovidio, Marianna d', and Valentina Pacetti. 2019. 'The City as a Creative Hub: The Case of the Fashion Industry in Milan, Italy'. In *Creative Hubs in Question*, edited by Rosalind Gill, Andy C. Pratt, and Tarek E. Virani, 281–98. Dynamics of Virtual Work. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-10653-9_15.

Pratt, Andy C. 2021. 'Creative Hubs: A Critical Evaluation'. *City, Culture and Society* 24 (March): 100384. doi:10.1016/j.ccs.2021.100384.

Ragin, Charles C. 2000. *Fuzzy-Set Social Science*. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Roundy, P.T., and M.A. Bayer. 2019. 'To Bridge or Buffer? A Resource Dependence Theory of Nascent Entrepreneurial Ecosystems'. *Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies* 11 (4): 550–75. doi:10.1108/JEEE-06-2018-0064.

Rundel, C. T., K. Salemink, and D. Strijker. 2020. 'Exploring Rural Digital Hubs and Their Possible Contribution to Communities in Europe'. *Journal of Rural and Community Development* 15 (3): 21–44.

Saniossian, J., X. Lecocq, and C. Beaucourt. 2022. 'Meta-Organizations in the Making. A Multiple Case Study of Multi-Stakeholder Meta-Organizations for Social Innovation'. *Management (France)* 25 (2): 27–44. doi:10.37725/mgmt.v25.4202.

Scaillerez, Arnaud, and Diane-Gabrielle Tremblay. 2017. 'Coworking, fab labs et living labs. État des connaissances sur les tiers lieux'. *Territoire en mouvement Revue de géographie et aménagement. Territory in movement Journal of geography and planning*, no. 34 (March). doi:10.4000/tem.4200.

Sheldon, P., E. Della Torre, and R. Nacamulli. 2019. 'When Territory Matters: Employer Associations and Changing Collective Goods Strategies'. *Human Resource Management Journal* 29 (1): 17–35. doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12201.
Spinuzzi, Clay. 2012. 'Working Alone Together: Coworking as Emergent Collaborative Activity'. *Journal of Business and Technical Communication* 26 (4): 399-441.
doi:10.1177/1050651912444070.

Valente, M., and C. Oliver. 2018. 'Meta-Organization Formation and Sustainability in Sub-Saharan Africa'. *Organization Science* 29 (4): 678-701. doi:10.1287/orsc.2017.1191.

Vogl, Thomas, and Mina Akhavan. 2022. 'A Systematic Literature Review of the Effects of Coworking Spaces on the Socio-Cultural and Economic Conditions in Peripheral and Rural Areas'. *Journal of Property Investment & Finance* 40 (5): 465-78. doi:10.1108/JPIF-12-2021-0108.