This article draws on the evidence gathered from a corporate social responsibility (CSR) research project in the area of global information technology (IT) outsourcing to examine the impact of liminality. IT outsourcing offers a novel context to study this phenomena, as it operates across the boundaries of both firm and country. The case study focuses on the specific project of a school in India, as the liminal space found ‘betwixt and between’ the client and provider of IT outsourcing services. Three stages of liminality are identified: separation (divestiture), transition (liminality) and incorporation (investiture); through the interpretive analysis of the empirical material. The construct of communitas is proposed for analysing the impact of liminality on the relationship between an outsourcing client and the provider. The understanding of liminality and communitas has both theoretical and practical implications, and contributes to the understanding of relationships and the wider role of CSR in global IT outsourcing.
AhmadN., and RamayahT. (2013). Does the Notion of ‘Doing Well by Doing Good’ Prevail Among Entrepreneurial Ventures in a Developing Nation?Journal of Business Ethics106(4): 479–490.
2.
BabinR., and HefleyB. (2013). Outsourcing Professionals' Guide to Corporate Responsibility, The Netherlands: Van Haren Publishing.
3.
BabinR., and NicholsonB. (2012). Sustainable Global Outsourcing: Achieving social and environmental responsibility in global IT and business, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
4.
BhattacharyaC.B., SankarS., and KorschunD. (2008). Using Corporate Social Responsibility to Win the War for Talent, MIT Sloan Management Review49(2): 37–44.
5.
BishopM., and GreenM. (2008). Philanthrocapitalism, London: Black.
6.
CarmelE., LacityM., and DotyA. (2014). The Impact of Impact Sourcing: Framing a research agenda, information systems outsourcing: Towards sustainable business value, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 397–429.
CousinsP., HandfieldR., LawsonB., and PetersenK. (2006). Creating Supply Chain Relational Capital: The impact of formal and informal socialization processes, Journal of Operations Management24(6): 851–863.
9.
CzarniawskaB., and MazzaC. (2003). Consulting as a Liminal Space, Human Relations56(3): 267–290.
10.
EdwardsM. (2008). Just Another Emperor? The Myths and Realities of Philanthrocapitalism, New York: Demos.
11.
EdwardsM. (2010). Small Change: Why business won't save the world, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
12.
EisenhardtK.M., and GraebnerM.E. (2007). Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and challenges, Academy of Management Journal50(1): 25–32.
13.
ElsterJ. (1989). Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
EmersonJ. (2003). The Blended Value Proposition: Integrating social and financial returns, California Management Review45(4): 35–51.
FalckO., and HeblichS. (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing well by doing good, Business Horizons50(3): 247–254.
17.
GarstenC. (1999). Betwixt and Between: Temporary employees as liminal subjects in flexible organizations, Organization Studies20(4): 601–617.
18.
GooJ., and HuangD. (2008). Facilitating Relational Governance Through Service Level Agreements in IT Outsourcing: An application of the commitment - trust theory, Decision Support Systems46(1): 216–232.
19.
GranovetterM. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties, American Journal of Sociology78(May): 1360–1380.
20.
HartS. (2005). Capitalism at the Crossroads: The unlimited business opportunities in solving the world's most difficult problems, Pennsylvania: Wharton School Publishing.
21.
HedströmP., and SwedburgR. (1998). Social Mechanisms: An introductory essay, in social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory, Cambridge: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, pp. 1–31.
22.
HedströmP., and YlikoskiP. (2010). Causal Mechanisms in the Social Sciences, Annual Review of Sociology36: 49–67.
23.
HenfridssonO., and YooY. (2014). The Liminality of Trajectory Shifts in Institutional Entrepreneurship, Organization Science25(3): 932–950.
24.
HeeksR. (2013). Information Technology Impact Sourcing, Communications of the ACM56(12): 22–25.
25.
KapfererB. (1969). Norms and the Manipulation of Relationships in a Work Context, in MitchellJ.C. (ed.) Social Networks in Urban Situations, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
26.
KellyS., and NoonanC. (2008). Anxiety and Psychological Security in Offshoring Relationships: The role and development of trust as emotional commitment, Journal of Information Technology23(4): 232–248.
27.
KernT., and WillcocksL. (2000). Exploring Information Technology Outsourcing Relationships: Theory and practice, Journal of Strategic Information Systems9(4): 321–350.
28.
LacityM., and WillcocksL. (2012). Advanced Outsourcing Practice: Rethinking ITO, BPO and cloud services, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
29.
LawsonB., PetersenK., CousinsP., and HandfieldR. (2009). Knowledge Sharing in Interorganizational Product Development Teams: The effect of formal and informal socialization mechanisms, Journal of Production Innovation Management26(2): 156–172.
30.
LevinaN., and VaastE. (2008). Innovating or Doing as Told? Status Differences and Overlapping Boundaries in Offshore Collaboration, MIS Quarterly32(2): 307–332.
31.
MargolisJ.D., and ElfenbeinH.A. (2008). Doing Well by Doing Good: Don't count on it, Harvard Business Review86(1): 19–20.
32.
MattenD., and MoonJ. (2008). ‘Implicit’ and ‘Explicit’ CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility, Academy of Management Review33(2): 404–424.
33.
MeléD. (2003). The Challenge of Humanistic Management, Journal of Business Ethics44(1): 77–88.
34.
MirvisP. (2012). Employee Engagement and CSR: Transactional, relational, and developmental approaches, California Management Review54(4): 93–117.
35.
MyersM., and NewmanM. (2007). The Qualitative Interview in IS Research: Examining the craft, Information and Organization17(3): 2–26.
36.
NyoroJ. (2011). Job Creation Through Building the Field of Impact Sourcing, New York: Rockefeller Foundation.
37.
OshriI., KotlarskyJ., and WillcocksL.P. (2007). Global Software Development: Exploring socialization in distributed strategic projects, Journal of Strategic Information Systems16(1): 25–49.
38.
PfitzerM., BrocksetteV., and StampM. (2013). Innovating for Shared Value, Harvard Business Review91(8): 3–9.
39.
PolakP., and WarwickM. (2013). The Business Solution to Poverty, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
40.
PoppoL., and ZengerT. (2002). Do Formal Contracts and Relational Governance Function as Substitutes or Complements?Strategic Management Journal23(8): 707–725.
41.
PorterM.E., and KramerM. (2011). Creating Shared Value, Harvard Business Review89(1): 63–77.
42.
PorterM., and KramerM. (2006). Strategy and Society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility, Harvard Business Review84(12): 78–92.
RoperS., and ParkerC. (2013). Doing Well by Doing Good: A quantitative investigation of the litter effect, Journal of Business Research66(11): 2262–2268.
45.
RottmanJ.W. (2008). Successful Knowledge Transfer within Offshore Supplier Networks: A case study exploring social capital in strategic alliances, Journal of Information Technology23(1): 31–43.
46.
SabherwalR. (1999). The Role of Trust in Outsourced IS Development Projects, Communications of the ACM42(2): 80–86.
47.
SayerA. (1992). Methods in Social Science: A realist approach, New York Routledge.
48.
SahayS., NicholsonB., and KrishnaS. (2003). Global IT Outsourcing: Software development across borders, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
StraussA., and CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
50.
SturdyA., SchwarzM., and SpicerA. (2006). Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? Structures and Uses of Liminality in Strategic Management Consultancy, Human Relations59(7): 929–960.
51.
TempestS., and StarkeyK. (2004). The Effects of Liminality on Individual and Organizational Learning, Organization Studies25(4): 507–527.
52.
TurnerV. (1969). The Ritual Process: Structure and anti-structure, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.
53.
TurnerV. (1977). Variations of the Theme of Liminality, in MooreS., and MyerhoffB. (eds.) Secular Ritual, Assen: Van Gorcum, pp. 36–52.
54.
TurnerE. (2012). Communitas: The anthropology of collective joy, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
55.
Van GennepA. (1909). The Rites of Passage, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
56.
WagnerEX., NewellS., and KayW. (2012). Enterprise Systems Projects: The role of liminal space in enterprise systems implementation, Journal of Information Technology27(4): 259–269.
57.
WalshamG. (2006). Doing Interpretive Research, European Journal of Information Systems15(3): 320–330.
58.
WalshamG. (1995). Interpretive Case Studies in IS Research: Nature and method, European Journal of Information Systems4(2): 74–81.
59.
WillcocksL., CullenS., and CraigA. (2011). The Outsourcing Enterprise: From cost management to collaborative innovation, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
60.
ZabuskyS.E., and BarleyS.R. (1997). ‘You Can't Be a Stone if You're Cement’: Re-evaluating the emic identities of scientists in organizations, Research in Organizational Behaviour19: 361.
