Virtual collaboration as co-enacting intercorporeality

ABSTRACT

This paper draws on Merleau-Ponty’s perspective on intercorporeality to inquire into the role of the body in virtual collaboration. Merleau-Ponty redefines the human body beyond pure physicality, as material-semiotic processes between self and other. From this perspective, meaningful engagements are based on the intertwinement of bodily activities including gestures and displays. Drawing on a rich case of an exclusively virtual collaboration, this paper illuminates how bodily expressivity is rematerialised through digital technology. The findings show how distributed bodies pattern an intercorporeal armature constituted of processes of co-presencing, co-orienting, and co-investing. The paper problematises claims of virtual disembodiment and advances current understanding of how body and technology merge to make virtual collaboration possible. The rich empirical insights are synthesised into four main theoretical propositions that constitute a novel perspective on virtual intercorporeality. This perspective advances our understanding of virtual embodiment and elaborates the role of technology and language in the process of mutual attunement between bodies.

KEYWORDS:

• Intercorporeality
• virtual embodiment
• Merleau-Ponty
• body
• gestures
• collaboration

1. Introduction

Collaboration between geographically distributed teams, enabled by Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), is commonly referred to as “virtual” (Robey et al., 2003; Schultze & Orlikowski, 2001). Despite being a ubiquitous phenomenon, the dominant theoretical approaches to understanding virtual collaboration have been premised on the superiority of face-to-face interactions as a pre-requisite for successful collaboration (Fayard & Metiu, 2014; Hinds & Kiesler, 2002; Malhotra et al., 2001; Metiu, 2006). Such views have been often founded on techno-deterministic underpinnings such as Media Richness Theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986) that have attributed many of the early problems of virtual collaboration to technology and its “inherent” features. Many studies, however, have questioned such techno-centric claims (Carlson & Zmud, 1999; Ngwenyama & Lee, 1997) and have offered empirical illustrations of complex virtual collaboration arrangements without face-to-face interactions (e.g., Malhotra et al., 2001; Metiu, 2006).

Such empirical findings have been considered paradoxical in light of the understanding that collaborating and working together are considered a “bodywork” (Nardi & Whittaker, 2002). Taking the body seriously is central to overcoming the Cartesian division between body and mind that privileges an “intellectualised”, “abstract”, and “disembodied” vision of organisational interactions (Dale, 2000; Küpers, 2014). Goodwin (2000) and Heath and Luff (1992) in their studies of workplaces showed the centrality of the human bodies for developing mutual orientation, predictability, and reference in mundane interactions.

Translating these insights to virtual context and understanding how bodies interact through technology has remained a major research challenge. While some authors have suggested that there has to be a novel understanding of the virtual collaboration and the role of the body as qualitatively distinct from the way they are enacted in co-located settings (e.g., Hinds & Kiesler, 2002), other scholars have rejected the role of the human body understanding the “virtual” as “disembodied” (Baralou & Tsoukas, 2015; Lindemann & Schünemann, 2020; Osler, 2020; Wilson et al., 2008, 2013).

The work of Merleau-Ponty (1962, 1968) has been particularly inspirational for exploring embodied interactions. For instance, his notion of “intercorporeality” designating the constitutive interconnection between bodies has been recently drawn on to explain how empathy, learning, and collaboration happen in virtual settings (e.g., Berger, 2020; Dolezal, 2020; Dreyfus, 2008; Fuchs, 2014). As Merleau-Ponty’s work pre-dates the Digital Age, many of these authors tend to understand the relationship between body and digital technologies in dualistic terms leading them to the conclusion that virtual processes are less real and authentic. Such claims, however, fail to recognise the growing evidence of authentic lived experiences in virtual settings (Feenberg, 2004). Some authors, for instance, have reported on cases of developing intimate virtual relationships through lean communication media (e.g., Walther, 1995). The majority of studies that problematise the understanding of the “virtual” as “disembodied”, however, are usually focused on immersive and visually mediated forms of virtuality, often exploring leisurely activities or e-sports (e.g., Ekdahl & Ravn, 2022; Ekdahl, 2021; Schultze, 2014). Fewer studies seek to understand the role of bodies in virtual organisational arrangements in which speech and text are still dominant forms of engagement (e.g., Hafermalz & Riemer, 2020; Keating, 2017). Against this background, this paper seeks to better understand the role of the human body in virtual collaboration by answering the following two questions:

1. What are the particular processes that constitute intercorporeality in inter-organisational virtual collaboration?

2. How can we conceptualise intercorporeality in a virtual context?

To answer these questions, this study explores a longitudinal case of an inter-organisational collaboration that, despite being exclusively virtual, leads to the development of authentic relational experiences resembling those in co-located settings. I use this case to motivate and engage in a process of theory development (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007) of virtual collaboration as a process of co-enacting intercorporeality that foregrounds the active and constitutive role of the human body. By building on Merleau-Ponty’s work on “intercorporeality” (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, 1968), the paper shows how bodily expressivities rematerialise in virtual context to enact¹ processes of co-presencing, co-orienting, and co-investing essential for meaningful virtual collaboration. I use the rich empirical insights to make a number of theoretical propositions that advance a novel perspective of virtual intercorporeality. This perspective assigns an ontological status to virtual bodies and re-defines the relationship between body, technology, and language.

The paper continues as follows: the next section reviews the literature on virtual collaboration with a particular focus on the role of the human body, and the following section introduces Merleau-Ponty’s perspective on intercorporeality. The subsequent section presents the research case and methods, and the fifth section outlines the findings. The discussion section is organised around five theoretical propositions. Finally, the paper ends with a conclusion.

2. Literature review: body and virtual collaboration

The dominant understanding in research on virtual collaboration has been that it requires physical presence (Dubé & Robey, 2009). This claim, however, has been also disputed by studies offering empirical evidence of productive virtual collaborations without any face-to-face interactions. One such notable case, reported by Malhotra et al. (2001), tells a story of a unique virtual project during which a small team successfully completed the design of a rocket engine without any f2f communication. Metiu (2006) has also showed how in one instance a distributed collaboration might be very challenging, whereas in a similarly geographically distributed arrangement the participating team members could develop closer relationships without any co-located interactions. Similar findings are reported by Schinoff et al. (2019) suggesting that people can develop strong bonds and feelings of proximity in distributed work arrangements. Walther et al. (2015), mostly relying on experimental findings, have also argued that people can develop high level of intimacy through virtual communication, arguing that these capacities might even exceed the ones of co-located teams and individuals.

These findings introduce variance across studies and question the dominant claim for the inferiority of virtual collaboration that is commonly attributed to the reduced richness and missing bodily cues. Many of these authors, however, remain agnostic about the status of the human body and focus on particular aspects of virtual collaboration such as regularity of interaction (Schinoff et al., 2019), mutual attention (Metiu & Rothbard, 2013), presence awareness (Espinosa et al., 2007; Schultze & Brooks, 2019), and aligning commitments (Einola & Alvesson, 2019). Other studies have attempted to develop a more holistic conceptual perspective that can account for the divergent outcomes of virtual collaboration. One such approach, for instance, suggests that the source of variance stems from different ways of using technology, where technology can afford better ways for developing situational awareness (Malhotra & Majchrzak, 2014), as well as, lead to more reflexive collaborative practices (Baralou & Tsoukas, 2015). Another approach pays little attention to the role of technology and instead focuses on the concept of distance (O’Leary et al., 2014; Wilson et al., 2008, 2013). These authors criticise the conventional understanding of distance as objective and problematise the claim that it should be experienced equally by all members of teamwork. Central to this argument is construal-level theory according to which physical distance is correlated to perceptions of proximity suggesting that the greater the physical distance between interlocutors, the more likely it is for them to construe each other at a higher level and in general terms and features (Wilson et al., 2013). Similarly, Wilson et al. (2008) contend that frequent communication with distant others sustains “cognitive salience”, which makes others more “top of mind”, serving as an antidote to “the out-of-sight-out-of-mind” problem in virtual teams (Kiesler & Cummings, 2002 p. 63).

Recent phenomenological accounts have directly addressed the issue of the human body by suggesting to fundamentally reconsider its connection to virtuality. Some, for instance, question the assumption that the sensation for the virtual “other” requires proximity similar to that in local space (Lindemann & Schünemann, 2020). These authors re-work the notions of space and lived experience to argue that lived bodies are only “artificial” bodies in virtual settings. Other studies question the pre-requisite of full embodied interactions for achieving a feeling of togetherness pointing out that relational experiences in virtual settings can be also based on habitual sense of togetherness (e.g. Osler, 2020).

In contrast, studies that draw on the work of Merleau-Ponty understand any type of engagement as embodied, but remain sceptical towards the possibility of authentic and productive forms of virtual collaboration exactly because of the inability of technology to mediate embodied interactions (Berger, 2020; Dolezal, 2020; Dreyfus, 2008; Fuchs, 2014). Fuchs (2014), for instance, argues that even though some virtual relationships might come across as empathic, they are actually a matter of our own projection and imagination, and are at best quasi-empathetic. Dolezal (2020), similarly, questions the capacity of video-conference technologies to replicate authentically the intercorporeal dynamics of social encounters. Such an argument is premised on the understanding that intercorporeal interactions require the experience of risks and moods that are inherently embodied and therefore make virtual experiences less authentic (Dreyfus, 2008). The implicit assumption in these studies is that technology is incapable of mediating the sentient and embodied aspects of human interactions.

This disassociation between embodiment and virtuality as incompatible states is rarely grounded in actual empirical evidence and experience (Feenberg, 2004). Some studies, for instance, problematise this disassociation arguing in favour entanglement of human and technological agencies (Ekdahl, 2021; Introna, 2017; Marchant & O’Donohoe, 2019). Such a view goes beyond merely acknowledging the role of the body in shaping technological uses and experiences (Chughtai, 2021), but shows how virtual and physical behaviours intertwine (Schultze, 2014; Stewart & Schultze, 2019), projecting into ideas of “virtual touch” (Springgay, 2005) or “digital beings” (Kim, 2001). Other studies have applied a similar interpretation to the perspective of intercorporeality that has helped them gain more granular insights into the actual bodily activities. One such study has insightfully captured the intercorporeal dynamics in competitive e-sport games (Ekdahl & Ravn, 2022). Keating (2017) similarly adopts a perspective of intercorporeality to explore how software engineers collaborate in a virtual project. In this study, however, intercorporeality is interpreted as physical interactions that are substituted in virtual settings by linguistic exchanges that are described in representational terms. Another study has drawn on Merleau-Ponty’s work to foreground the centrality of embodied skills in linguistic exchanges between remotely-located nurses and patients (e.g., Hafermalz & Riemer, 2020). Although these authors affirm the materiality of the body as a basis for linguistic practices, the relationship between body and language lacks a more nuanced treatment.

Notwithstanding that many of these studies have questioned the disassociation between embodiment and virtuality, showing that virtual interactions are at least partly embodied, the understanding of the role of the human body often remains limited to physicality, and at best technologically extended and enhanced through discursive and visual representations. We still lack a more coherent perspective that takes seriously the ontological status of the body in virtual context and that accounts for its relationship to physicality, technology, and other. Questions about the relationship between body and technology, beyond the abstract claims of “entanglement”, are still to be addressed in order to understand how bodily expressivity is co-enacted, and how it differs from or overlaps with linguistic signification in virtual context. This paper will address these questions by adopting Merleau-Ponty’s perspective on intercorporeality, operationalising it to a rich case of an inter-organisational virtual collaboration. Ultimately, this study will develop a number of theoretical propositions and synthesise them into a novel perspective of virtual intercorporeality.

3. Merleau-Ponty’s intercorporeal world: conceptual perspective

For Merleau-Ponty the human “world” is an “interworld” or “flesh” (Merleau-Ponty, 1968) that is constituted of “intercorporeal” relationalities (Moran, 2017). The notion of intercorporeality (intercorporéité) implies a constitutive interconnection between bodies that are always already embedded and intertwined in an interworld. To think about the body from the perspective on intercorporeality means to emphasise that the experience of being embodied is never a private affair but is always already mediated by our continuous interactions with other human and nonhuman bodies (Weiss, 1999). Intercorporeality then is the bedrock of intersubjective relationships like an “armature that manifests and conceals” (Merleau-Ponty, 1968, p. 149). Intercorporeality foregrounds the active role of the body whose relationships with self and other serve as fundamental condition of meaningful collaboration and purposive collective activities (Cuffari & Streck, 2017; Loenhoff, 2017). In particular, it serves as context and pre-meaning that allows us to relate and respond to others in appropriate ways, and becomes a meaningful background of all that we might do next: “In order to develop a habit of responding to something… I must be aware that something is coming, before it comes, and even before I know what it is. I must be able to anticipate its presence, that is, to face it while it is still before me and before I have reached it, or it me” (Todes, 2001, pp. 62–3). Table 1 captures the main insights of how this intercorporeal lens redefines and expands our understanding of the human body that are further elaborated below.

Table 1. Synthesis of intercorporeality perspective.

Intercorporeal view of the body	Redefinition of the body
More-than-physical	The self is more than the physical body and one’s awareness of self is not from within but from without, therefore one’s experience goes beyond physicality. The body is not limited to its physical location and boundaries.
More-than-individual	The body is porous and open to the other and the world. It is complete with the ‘other’. In fact, only through the other one can gain awareness of self. The shared world is always already embodied and fundamentally intersubjective. The body is the movement between self and other; it is the dynamic in-betweenness.
More-than-stable	The body is continuously in movement – oscillating between awareness of other and self; and mutually adjusting posture and direction with the other. Thus, the body is a self-other becoming, but at the same time is the ‘null point’ of all experimental orientations being an absolute ‘here’ for the self.
More-than-connective	Self and other are constantly in the making. Self, other and their relationships are continuously transformed. This relationship is enactive and is productive of body-subjects, identities and intersubjectivities.
More-than-predictable	Embodied communicative intentionality is about spontaneity and continuity of responses and solicitations. This process of co-responsiveness is emergent and hardly predictable.
More-than-explicit	The workings of the bodies might take different forms of gestures or frozen traces. Bodies operate tacitly and become visible through actions and behaviours.

3.1. Intercorporeality: body image and body-schema

For Merleau-Ponty the human body is not merely a substance, reduced to its physical traits. Instead, he contends that the body is comprised of two dimensions: body-schema and body image. The body-schema is the flexible, plastic, systemic form of distributed agency encompassing what takes place within the boundaries of the physical body as well as the entirety of the spatiality of embodied motility. It is an intermodal and pre-existential potentiality that forms our “lived experience” and maintains and processes information about movement and posture (Gallagher, 1995, p. 376). As such, this body-schema serves as a “general medium for having a world” (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, p. 146). In contrast, the body image is the body as object, which is generated from a primarily visual apprehension of the body as an external object, or content of intentionality (Gallagher, 1995). In contrast with body schema that is pre-noetic and pre-subjective and designates our living experience free of cognitive reflection, body image concerns the use of “symbolic” or “objectifying” representations that conceptualise our experience (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, p. 140). These insights relate to the phenomenological model of intentionality, which involves understanding the body on both sides of the intentional relation – these are, the body image or body as object of intentional consciousness where one perceives (understands, studies, loves, etc.) her body as an intentional object, and body schema² that makes perception possible and consists of the non-conscious appropriation of postures and movements (Gallagher, 1995).

These insights suggest that the body is not merely a physical substance but is expanded beyond its skin and objective space, which makes it always already virtual via primordial connections with the world: “What counts for the orientation of the spectacle is not my body as it in fact is, as a thing in objective space, but as a system of possible actions, a virtual body with its phenomenal ‘place’ defined by its task and situation. My body is wherever there is something to be done”. (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, pp. 248–250). This implies that the body is more-than-physical but also always already virtual.

3.2. Intercorporeality - ‘othered’ bodies

The distinction between the lived experience or tactile feeling of one’s body, and the visual or specular experience of the body can be also seen as a distinction of the body “for me” and the body “for the other”, which is also formative of intersubjective relationships. This means that not only one’s access to own thoughts is not immediate and therefore not too different from that of others, but also that one always already requires a concrete or imaginary “other” that serves as the “mirror” for one’s body image and completion of the self (Diprose, 2002). In this way, Merleau-Ponty contradicts an asocial and solipsistic view of human interactions refuting questions about the connection to the “other” by pointing out that there is no place that is purely isolated as the “self”. He describes this primordial and inseparable interweaving of body-subjects³ with terms such as “intertwinement”, “interbody”, or “organs of single intercorporeality” (Merleau-Ponty, 1964b, p. 168).

Intercorporeality not only foregrounds the openness and porousness of the human body, but also its role for creating self-ness. More specifically, this perspective implies that one’s lived experience and relationship to self is not immediate, but co-constituted by the body image impressed by others, and in this sense always already virtual and transcendent. The two sides of the body are never simultaneously with one another as embodied self-reflection always “miscarries at the last moment” (Merleau-Ponty, 1968, p. 249). In other words, to sense oneself is not about drawing closer to one’s essence but distancing from self and requiring the other’s presence. The notion of intercorporeality, consequently, redefines the human body as more-than-individual where the self is inherently permeated and co-produced by the “other”.

3.3. Intercorporeality – reversible process of intertwining

An intercorporeal conception of bodies shifts focus from individual bodies to the co-constitutive relations between them. It challenges the idea of the body as a self-enclosed discrete entity with distinct boundaries and instead draws attention to the continuous mutual becoming of bodies and bodily boundaries. Such a corporeal inter-connectedness, however, does not mean that boundaries and differences completely disappear. Rather, it is a process in which bodies both go beyond the surface of their skin as bounded and singular. Merleau-Ponty describes this dynamic process of movement between self and other with the notion of “reversibility” that sets a middle way between complete synthesis or division between body-subjects. For instance, in encounters with others, the handshake is “reversible” as one can feel oneself touched as well at the same time as touching; or in a situation of mutual gaze, we have our body seeing and being seen by the other. Reversing the roles and taking up the other’s vantage on oneself is central to intercorporeality. Being sentient and sensible at the same time, the human body touches itself touching or sees itself seeing. The notion of reversibility conveys the idea of double openness between intra-acting bodies through which each body becomes both subject and object via the “other”. This means that for one to encounter one’s own exteriority and situatedness, or to become experiencing subject, she has to be also experienceable to others.

Such reversible flow is a “processual patterning” that differentiates and “unifies” without synthesis, while constituting all sensing, perceiving, and communicating (Merleau-Ponty, 1968, p. 143). Patterning can be insightfully illustrated with the example of two mirrors: “as upon two mirrors facing one another where two indefinite series of images set in one another arise which belong really to neither of the two surfaces, since each is only the rejoinder of the other, and which therefore form a couple more real than either of them” (Merleau-Ponty, 1968, p.138). This claim is further elaborated by Diprose (2002, p. 54): “The self is produced, maintained, and transformed through the socially mediated intercorporeal ‘transfer’ of movements and gestures and body bits and pieces … Bodies, as they are lived, are socially constituted, built from an intertwining with others who are already social beings”.

The body from an intercorporeality perspective is essentially a material-semiotic process that turns body image and body schema, as well as, self and other into “two segments of a single circular movement” (Merleau-Ponty, 1968, p. 138). Thus, being the null point and formative of the self, the body is more-than-stable having a volatile character of continuous becoming that prevents both complete awareness of self (posture, orientation) and fixed totality with the “other”. This process is not about connecting separate egos but about enacting and producing body-subjects, identities, and intersubjectivities, and as such is more-than-connective (Weiss, 2008).

3.4. Intercorporeality: linguistic, expressive, and gestural accomplishment

An essential insight from the claim that body-subjects are not entities with discrete boundaries is that the interactions between them are not a matter of exchanging discretely definable messages such as discursive propositions. Intercorporeal meaningfulness comes from the continuous patterning of movements where the body is “the condition of possibility … of all of the expressive operations and all of the acquisitions that constitute a cultural world” (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, p. 408). Expression is about “making public” and not about a transmission of an individually and internally generated thoughts “speech in the speaker does not translate ready-made thought, but accomplishes it” (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, p.178). Nor are emotions external manifestations of internal feelings, e.g.,, “gesture does not make me think of anger, it is the anger itself” (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, p. 214). The reversible patterning of intercorporeality is not a matter of discrete message exchanges but is rather about mutual perception where perceiving is also expressing: “to perceive is to render oneself present to something through the body” (Merleau-Ponty, 1964c, p. 42). Intercorporeality then is based on bodily displays making oneself available to the perception of the other and perceiving the displays others make available. This process of mutual displaying or co-responding involves the timing, distance, speed, and position of the other (Moran, 2017).

Language also plays an important role in this process of displaying and being displayed. (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, p.190) foregrounds the gestural and embodied significance of language, claiming that “speech is a gesture, and its signification a world” and undermining the denotative (naming) role of language (Radley, 1991). For him this gestural dimension of language can be found in the “primordial silence beneath the noise of words” (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, pp. 180–184). Chatelet (1999) extends these insights to text arguing that written language is not an abstraction divorced from the body, but rather written words are embodied movements or frozen gestures, and such “gestures mid-flight” open different possibilities (Rotman, 2008). Thus, language for Merleau-Ponty is action (Austin, 1971) or rather “joint action” (Shotter, 2008) that can include the expressive content of things (Waldenfels, 2000).

In dialogue, neither partner experiences communication as coding and decoding; rather, it is about gearing into the gestural signification of words, without distinguishing between verbal and non-verbal (Noland, 2009). In particular, the other’s gesturing, behaving, or vestiges, such as instruments or texts, solicit one’s body to gear into the sense that will emerge in the encounter (Landes, 2013). Abandoning the view of the autonomous and rational person also means that conversations are rarely driven by the primacy of thought⁴ and instead what precedes interactions resembles “vague fever” and expression then is “like a step taken in the fog – no one can say where, if anywhere, it will lead” (Merleau-Ponty, 1964a, p. 3). This suggests that the process of expressive communication is more-than-predictable not only because all human actions and behaviours are in fact communicative expressions and displays (Landes, 2013, p. 118), but also because they are spontaneous without a pre-determined use, gaining their significance in the interaction.

Importantly, the enactment of intercorporeality happens not only through actual movements, but through the expectation or orientation to potential movement (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, p. 234). This suggests then that not all gestures are spontaneous and unreflective in nature but there are also such of a more “strategic” nature that seek to evoke certain responses or feelings that aim to steer the intercorporeality in a particular direction. Such “strategic” gestures create a semblance with actual gestures but symbolise a personality or emotion similar to theatrical performances (Langer, 1953, p. 180). Such expressions are displays that have more strategic orientation of tendency, anticipation, and feeling that “dance out” the intercorporeal relationship (Noland, 2009).

The process of expressing is more-than-explicit, often involving tacit displays and gestures resulting in the intercorporeal armature that is the “essence beneath us, a common nervure of the signifying and signified” (Merleau-Ponty, 1968. p. 118). Through this process one also tacitly develops a sense of self, or of ones’ position and orientation that open up the field of possibilities (Merleau-Ponty, 1962).

3.5. Analytical framework

The examples of intercorporeality provided by Merleau-Ponty and his interpreters are from co-located and proximal settings where touch and vision are the primary sensory experiences. These might include shaking hands, kissing, massaging, dancing wrestling, etc., and in each such encounter bodies co-appear and co-experience each other in particular ways. As Merleau-Ponty lived in the pre-digital age, he never wrote about digital technology per se and his interpreters rarely recognise the potential of his work for examining virtual phenomena (Moran, 2017). Merleau-Ponty’s writings on tools and objects, however, might help understand the relationship between body and technology. For instance, for him tools are not just perceptual attachments or extensions but are rather incorporations in the body: “my body is the common fabric into which all objects are woven, and it is, at least in relation to the perceived world, the general instrument of my comprehension” (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, p. 235).

Different aspects of his work can be useful for further understanding the relationship between body and technology. For instance, he contends that the situatedness of the lived body is not limited to the actual here and now but rather extends into and open-ended horizon of potentialities of being (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, p.106), which suggests that technology can transform basic intercorporeal experiences. In addition, Merleau-Ponty recognises that we have multi-sensorial interactions in which senses overrun their normal boundaries and often overlap. Such insights can be particularly relevant for understanding the rematerialising role of technology and how senses change and mix in context such as the virtual where touch and vision are not naturally given.

Table 2 presents the main concepts of the perspective of intercorporeality and offers insights from the way it works in co-located settings that hold implications for examining its role in virtual settings.

Table 2. Analytical framework.

Concept	Description	Analytical implications
Body	More than physical and individual. It is a material-semiotic process enacting both body-image (body for other) and body-schema (body for me); both sentient and sensible, open and completed through the ‘other’. As such it provides the fundamental orientation to any meaningful collaboration or relationship.	In co-located settings, the body is usually visible and touchable. Its actions, gestures and behaviours and the way they engage with the ‘other’ are immediate, situated in the present, and spatially proximate.
Reversibility	Suggests that self and other are ontologically related, which means that they are not merely connected but intertwined. It is not either about reciprocity or fusion, but re-enforces both ‘identity in difference’. Relationships are reversible patterns of self-other becoming.	In a shared physical space a lived body can simultaneously see and be seen, touch and be touched, speak and be heard, move and reorient its perspective across different sensory modes. Through this process one gains awareness of self and other and their actions become interlocked into patterns that connect the past with the present and future.
Expression	For Merleau-Ponty all ‘human action is expression’ including movements and gestures that make things public, and connect bodies to each other. The process of mutual displaying might involve co-responding of timing, distance, speed, and position that result into the patterning of the relational armature.	In co-located settings there can be different visual indicators such as changes in body posture, facial expressions, direction and intensity of gaze, as well as, different bodily gestures that constitute intercorporeality. In addition, there can be different oral indicators such as intonation and volume of voice.
Language	It is not just a symbolic system representing thoughts, but instead accomplishes them, having important spontaneous and gestural role.	Language as gestures focuses on the extra-discursive and embodied aspects that emerge in parallel with expressions that rely on the content of words and their semantic meanings.

In the following, I present the data collection and analytical approach of a unique case of an exclusively virtual collaboration during which two remotely distributed organisations develop a productive relationship and carry out together a complex process of software development.

4. Methods

The research follows an abductive yet theory-led approach where the empirical material plays a critical role as a “dialogic partner” in the process of critical reflection (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007). The case is about a complex and an interactive software development collaboration between an Irish and an Indian company. The emergence of a productive and emotionally intense relationship without any face-to-face meetings or prior interactions makes the case particularly appropriate for exploring it from an intercorporeal perspective. Describing an exclusively virtual collaboration, carried out through email communication and Skype meetings, the case is particularly amenable to examining the intercorporeal dynamics. In particular, the granular empirical material illustrating the actual virtual interactions is relevant to reflect on the process of co-enacting intercorporeality. Through an iterative approach this study generates a number of theoretical propositions that aim to develop a perspective on virtual intercorporeality. The emphasis in this approach is on developing a conceptual generalisation as opposed to statistical variety (Walsham, 1995). Below, I offer an account of the empirical settings, as well as, the data collection and analysis approaches.

4.1. Case description

The case covers an inter-organisational collaboration between Purple, and Irish client, and IndiaSoft, an Indian vendor. Initially, the collaboration between the two companies evolved into a friendly and productive relationship, but later it significantly deteriorated and ended in a commercial dispute. Below, I present the background of the two companies and more details about the chronology of the collaboration.

4.1.1. IndiaSoft

The company was operating in Ireland since 2004 offering software development services to small start-up companies and SMEs. Being a small start-up company itself, IndiaSoft was conceived as an almost virtual business venture that was providing hybrid combinations of onshore, offshore, and near-shore software development services. And, the main development team was located in Jaipur (India), additional development support was located in Poland, and the onshore centre in Dublin.

4.1.2. Purple

Purple was a small start-up technology company that specialised in offering security solutions. The company was located in Cork, Ireland, and had its small in-house software development team. The chief technology officer Paul and the team had a rich international experience having worked in various established technology companies. Since their internal resources and range of expertise were limited, Purple were often relying on external contractors, which in some cases were just individuals who worked as freelancers on the company’s premises or companies collaborating from remote locations.

4.1.3. Relationship between Purple and IndiaSoft

Purple had signed up a demanding contract with a big UK-based retailer that was about to start selling their security solutions, bundled with some of their products. Central to this service was a CRM solution that can allow the customers to avail of the security service. A major part of this service was the development of a call centre and database module. While Purple had an in-house development team comprised of 4 permanent employees, they have decided to outsource the development to an external vendor. The competitive rates offered by IndiaSoft, coupled with its availability to start immediately, were amongst the main reasons for selecting them over local vendors.

After a quick start in August 2007, the collaboration was unfolding smoothly and unproblematically, and after nearly 5 months was extended to cover the development of another module. Representatives of the two companies met face-to-face only once before the start of the second module. The collaboration continued for another 4.5 months but started deteriorating and exhibiting considerable relational problems and ended in March 2008.

4.2. Data collection

The data collection extended between October 2007 and July 2009. Unstructured interviews were conducted throughout this period with the main actors involved in the projects (Table 3). During the initial round of interviews, the questions were focused on the challenges and difficulties in developing a working collaborative relationship, while in the subsequent rounds the questions aimed to gain insights into how and why the collaborative experiences evolved. Questions directly informed by the perspective of intercorporeality, concerning the role of the body, were initially tested but dropped as were considered confusing echoing the argument that one’s being-in-the-world is a form of unreflective immersion (Winograd & Flores, 1986). During the initial round of interviews that took place in the first project the participants answered questions about their experience in collaborating virtually and what worked well and what not in this process. In the latter interviews, during and after the relationship started deteriorating, research respondents were encouraged to reflect on the relational problems and the respective changes in the communication practices. Questions about what could have been done to avoid or overcome these problems also elicited more reflective answers.

Table 3. Data collection.

Project participants	Interviewees	Interviews	Inter-team meetings	Correspondence archive
IndiaSoft: Balik Madan Sean Developers	Balik CEO (IndiaSoft)	October 2007 (F2F) November 2007 (Skype) May 2008 (Skype)	2 June & July 2009	Around 500 emails constituting the correspondence over the two projects. Over 40 project documents
	Paul Project manager (Purple)	November 2007 (Skype) February 2008 (Skype) May 2009 (Skype)
Purple Paul Kevin Anthony John Other developers	Sean Chief Marketing Officer (IndiaSoft)	October 2007 (F2F) November 2007 (Skype) February 2007 (Skype) May 2008 (F2F) June 2009 (Skype)
	Madan Project manager (IndiaSoft)	November 2007 (Skype) May 2008 (Skype) July 2009 (Skype)
		TOTAL 15

In addition, multiple informal chats and telephone conversations with all project participants also provided important insights throughout and after the end of the relationship. Having the Skype Ids of all project participants made it easier to maintain frequent interactions with a view to developing a better relationship with respondents. Almost two years after the start of the first project, two meetings with the companies (one f2f and one via Skype) were organised to present the findings. These meetings were also a valuable opportunity for capturing the mature reflections of the key people involved in the projects.

In addition to the formal and informal conversations, all email correspondence and archival data were thoroughly analysed. This documentary evidence consisted of all the email correspondence (around 500 emails) exchanged during the two projects, and all project documentation including project plans, consultant reports, financial information, and weekly status reports. This was not just additional source of data, complementing the interviews, but had a primary significance in identifying important interactive patterns, and gaining understanding of day-to-day work processes that were not discursively available to interviewees (Barley & Kunda, 2001). The archival data also provided an ethnographic dimension to this research and allowed for “thick” descriptions of the everyday virtual interactions (Markham & Baym, 2009).

4.3. Analysis

Following an abductive approach in the analysis (Golden-Biddle & Locke, 2006), the work of Merleau-Ponty was drawn on as a sensitising device (Flyvbjerg, 2011; Walsham, 2006) for generating doubt and surprise. Abduction consists of three steps: (1) using theory as a sensitising device; (2) observing a surprise in the empirical data in relation to the theory; (3) articulating a new theory that resolves the surprise (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007).

The initial puzzle that served as an impetus for this study was: How did Purple and IndiaSoft manage to develop a meaningful collaborative relationship, typical for co-located interactions, in such exclusively virtual settings, relying on email communication? Understanding the role of the body was a central facet to addressing this puzzle. Yet, the extant perspectives did not account for the interactive dynamic and subtle forms of expressing through email. I, therefore, engaged with the work of Merleau-Ponty and particularly his perspective on intercorporeality, which appeared suitable to capture in more depth the role of the body in virtual context leading to the two research questions:

1. What are the particular processes that constitute intercorporeality in inter-organisational virtual collaboration?

2. How can we conceptualise intercorporeality in a virtual context?

The analysis followed three steps. First, the emphasis was on identifying useful concepts that can delineate the parameters of the phenomenon – that is, the emergent intercorporeality between the two remotely located organisations. Operationalising Merleau-Ponty’s ideas was not a straightforward process as he does not discuss the constitution of intercorporeality in collaborative contexts, and even less so in virtual ones. Thus, the initial analysis combined theoretical and empirical insights (Gioia et al., 2012) and sought to code the main relational problems that were also amenable to more reflective testimonies by the research participants (Winograd & Flores, 1986). In particular, I relied on Merleau-Ponty’s ideas that posture, timing, speed, and proximity (Table 2) are central to the constitution of intercorporeality in co-located settings and explored how these insights translate to the case of virtual collaboration. As a result, combining Merleau-Ponty’s ideas with the empirical insights, I developed concepts that were later grouped into themes (Myers, 2013). The three themes are co-presencing, co-orienting, and co-investing (Table 4).

Table 4. Sample of the data coding process – building themes.

Meaning unit	Concept/Label	Theme
“I can’t ping you because you are offline in Skype” (email quote)“I think we all kept track of their availability in Skype and everyone knew this … ” (interview quote)	Posture, presence, visibility.	Co-presencing – enacting mutual visibility
“He is the kind of phrase ‘a real blow buster’, you are not waiting for him to get back to you he is back to you before you press the ‘send’ button”. (interview quote)“ Thanks for sending this so quickly”. (email quote).	Direction, timing, orientation.	Co-orienting – mutual attunement of readiness to engage.
“We couldn’t get time and commitment from you” (email quote) “Both companies became complacent … ” (interview quote)	Commitment, proximity, investment.	Co-investing – mutual attunement of care and commitment.

Second, I examined these three processes looking to identify how they were interactively patterned through virtual embodied acts. The initial approach to coding was sensitive to Merleau-Ponty’s claim that all human actions can be acts of expressing, which raised questions how to identify the intercorporeal expressivity in virtual settings. A focus on the actual email interactions was particularly useful as the body-in-action withdraws from conscious attention and potential exploration through interviews. Theoretical insights related to the gestural and strategic roles of language, combined with some interview testimonies, were particularly helpful for developing the coding scheme for the content analysis (Table 5).

Table 5. Coding scheme of bodily gestures and displays.

Empirical example	Descriptive coding	Analytic category
“Thanks for bringing this to us”. “You have to talk even if you don’t have anything to say”	Closing episodes Small talk	Non-propositional linguistic gestures that play a role in the interactive patterning. They have a strategic orientation and display presence and acknowledgement.
“Well done! Our team appreciated the work that has gone in preparing this”.	Digital texts and documents	Textual artefacts as frozen gestures indexing back to the authoring bodies and displaying a particular trajectory.
“I think we all kept track of their availability in Skype and everyone knew this … ”	Skype icon	Using tools for extending and enacting one’s bodily expressivity.
“May be this can be of some help for MySQL clustering support”. “Give us a shout if you need some help with this module”	Giving symbolic gifts Offering help	Actions and behaviours enacted through language. They have a strategic orientation, and display particular orientation to the other.
“Madan is away from his desk until Tuesday … ”	Reversing perspectives	Gestures that help perceive one’s own position through the other; making public certain current or future actions enabling others to organise their actions in relation to ours.

Following the work of Rogers and Escudero (2004) who show how different communication behaviours, analogous to dance steps, combine into sequences of recurring communication patterns, I sought to explore and visualise how the intercorporeal patterns were jointly produced. As a result, I identified the indicators “speed of response” and “amount of time and attention” that illuminated the non-linguistic engagements through which intercorporeal patterns were interactively accomplished. Another relevant indicator was the time it took to close an email chain or “topic closure duration”, which was also quantifiable, being symptomatic of the quality of patterning (Table 6). Issues related to these communication behaviours were also discussed by some of the research respondents confirming their significance and relevance for understanding the intercorporeal patterning.

Table 6. Communication patterns.

Empirical example	Indicator	Analytic category
The average response time for the first project was 5h and 17.9h for the second project (Figure 3) The average of exchanged emails per day during the first project were 5.7 vs. 3.2 during the second project.	Speed of responseAmount of time and attention	Behaviours and actions that display a particular attitude towards the other that is interactively accomplished.
75% of the topics were closed within 40 hours during the first project vs. 80 hours during the second project (Figure 1)	Topic closure duration	Disintegration of communication patterns.

Figure 1. Email topic closure duration.

Central to these research endeavours was the analytical framework that redefines the human body as more-than-physical, more-than-individual and more-than-representational suggesting that bodies co-enact intercorporeality through different gestures and expressions of mutual displaying. Importantly, this approach involved a translation of Merleau-Ponty’s main theoretical ideas to virtual context, which entailed identifying how bodily expressivity is enacted in email interactions. Third, this paper offers theoretical generalisation from the in-depth analysis of the actual interactions and interpretations of participants’ experiences (Walsham, 1995). In particular, I draw out a number of theoretical propositions by going back and forth between the original analytical framework and empirical insights in order to synthesise a novel perspective of virtual intercorporeality. The details of the coding are included in the Appendix (Table A1) showing the final codes, their descriptions, and frequencies.

5. Purple – IndiaSoft collaboration as co-enacting intercorporeality: findings

In the following, I seek to show how the intercorporeality between IndiaSoft and Purple is enacted and how it informs the relationship between the two companies. I first start by discussing the evidence for the emergence of intercorporeality during the initial part of the relationship and its disintegration in the latter one. I, then, delineate the three inter-related processes of intercorporeal patterning and discuss their constitutive role for the relationship, as well as, how they are co-enacted by bodily gestures and displays.

5.1. IndiaSoft-Purple relationship: emergence and disintegration of intercorporeality

The difficulty to uncover the intercorporeal dynamics has been described by Merleau-Ponty as the invisible bedrock of intersubjective relationships. As highlighted its tacit workings both “manifest” and “conceal” underneath purposeful interactions. The development of a harmonious collaborative relationship during the work on the first module, and the deterioration of the relationship during the collaboration on the second module provided rich insights that resonated with Merleau-Ponty’s work. In particular, while the intercorporeal dynamics remains tacit and withdrawn from attention, the relational difficulties brought about abrupt and palpable changes (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, p. 294) that helped the analytical process. For instance, the descriptions of the problems conveyed a sense of disintegration of the intercorporeality:

Every time we tried to involve them into the communication it was a complete disaster, every time and we tried to do it several times. The communication was difficult, who is speaking, or they are not listening, etc. It was a disaster and it did not work at all (Paul, May 2009).

Other comments closely echoed Merleau-Ponty’s notion of intertwinement and reversibility of perspectives capturing nuances of the failing relational patterning:

Madan should’ve come to us, we should’ve come to you, we should’ve “nip that in the bud” – Anthony should’ve come to you – you should’ve come to us … and recover our understanding of what is going on in each team (Sean, June 2009).

Such testimonies also alluded to the gestural and semiotic dimension of communication:

I think besides all that and all the structures in place, all the different measures in place, one thing that we always should follow is ‘see the flags’ … if that doesn’t happen doesn’t matter how many processes and structures we have put in … (Balik, May 2009).

The disentangling of intercorporeality was associated with “mismatch of expectations” and feeling of “not being on the same page” (Paul, July 2009). Such a loss of fundamental attunement between the teams also reflected negatively on the way task-related interactions were organised. For instance, a quantitative analysis of the interactions showed that the finalising and closing of topics as email threads continued much longer during the second project being an evidence of the disintegrating communication patterns. Figure 1 shows that within 40 hours from the first email 75% of the topics were closed during the first project, but this time doubled to 80 hours during the second project.

In addition, the average topic closing time during the first project was 24 hours and, respectively, 79 hours for the second project (Figure 2). This change is symptomatic of the disintegrating intercorporeal patterning pointing to its negative implications for the project collaboration.

Figure 2. Distribution of topic duration.

The even distribution of the topic closures in the first project is also indicative of the maintenance of stable relational armature. In contrast, the delays and absences that transpire in the pattern of the second project echo the alienation and antagonism associated with the fragmented intercorporeality.

In exploring what role intercorporeality plays in supporting the collaboration between the two organisations, below, I delineate three inter-related processes of patterning – co-presencing, co-orienting, and co-investing. By doing this, I also illustrate how these processes are co-constituted by bodily engagements.

5.2. Virtual intercorporeal patterning

The analysis of the collaboration between Purple and IndiaSoft revealed an interactive dynamic through which mutual expectations were co-enacted echoing Merleau-Ponty’s notion of intercorporeality. In particular, the understanding that the body is more-than-physical, more-than-individual, more-than-stable, more-than-connective, more-than-predictable (Table 2) illuminated the process of developing intercorporeality as a dynamic accomplishment of co-attuning self and other through tacitly shared gestures and displays. This process patterned certain expectations that sustained the meaningful collaboration between the two companies. The examination of the episodes of mismatch of expectations allowed to identify what are the particular expectations that support this interorganisational collaboration, and to trace their intercorporeal patterning. Below, the three inter-related processes of patterning are elaborated – these are, co-presencing, co, orienting, and co-investing.

5.2.1. Virtual intercorporeality – co-presencing

One particular aspect of the tacit mutual attunement that was setting certain expectations between the two parties was their presence. This raised the question how was co-presencing enacted.

One specific episode clearly illuminated the role of Skype use for coordinating mutual presence. Throughout the two projects Skype was being used as a communication media for informal chats or conducting conference calls. It also transpired, however, that the Skype status icon was also mutually observed and was part of the dynamic process of co-presencing, which also emphasises the idea that presence is better described as a continuous process of “presencing”. While this tacit coordination of presences continued mostly unnoticed throughout the first project, the frequent “offline” status of Madan became a reason for escalation and back-channelling in the second project:

Table

Paul: Hi Madan, my number 1 priority is getting the laptop client testing started again. For that we need a stub of the report find action as per previous mails. PLEASE get the laptop report find action deployed on Tuesday - it only has to be a stub. I can’t ping you because you’re offline in Skype …? (Email from Paul to Madan, 21.01.2008) Paul: I need the new action defined and deployed as quickly as possible.. BTW: Madan still seems to be offline in Skype - I hope he is getting emails… (Email from Paul to Balik, 22.01.2008) Balik: Madan, see if Anthony can be agreed to have a quick 10 minutes update every morning with you. This would improve communication level….We really need to make an effort to bring Purple client in comfort zone, I think its red at the minute” (Email from Balik to Madan, 22.01.2008).

This offline Skype status was interpreted as lack of attention and had triggered anxiety at Purple. Their escalations were trying to recover the predictability and sense of reliability. This episode pointed to the signifying role of the Skype icon that was indexing the present body and was aform of bodily expressivity that co-enacted mutual visibility and predictability. The failure to sustain this practice of displaying in thesecond project reduced the feeling of “being there” for the other, and brought afragmentation in the temporal coordination: “I think we all kept track of their availability in Skype and everyone knew this … ” (Paul, November 2007). Such ause of the Skype icon echoes Merleau-Ponty’s understanding of bodily displaying or gesturing being enacted through different tools.

The process of co-presencing was also facilitated by linguistic gestures pointing to the missing bodies and in this way preventing breaches in the reversibility of interactions. For instance, during the first project whenever there were delays or absences of distant others, both co-workers and managers were always intervening to prevent harmful interpretations. In this way, they overcame the potential threat of disruptions in the patterned expectations, which contributed to the relational breakdown in thesecond project: “Problems arose from unmet expectations … there needs to be a match” (Sean, May 2009).

Table

Madan is away from his desk until Tuesday, he will ping on you on Wednesday morning. Please let me know if there is anything urgent and I will handle it with team“(Email from Balik to Paul) Thanks Madan. Can we leave this till tomorrow? Kevin is not in the office today.” (Email from Paul to Madan in a response to an email sent to Kevin) Sean is away from his desk until later afternoon, he will call you to arrange meeting with him tomorrow once he is back on his desk and if needed I can conf you two from here (Balik Paul, Dec 2007)

While the reversible patterning was predominantly carried out through the quality and rhythm of spontaneous responding as part of the mundane interactions, these discursive gestures echoed the “strategic gestures”, described by Langer (1953). While they resembled ordinary self-expressions similar to the gestures creating predictability in collocated interactions, they also strategically signalled an understanding of the importance of co-presencing by adopting the other’s point of view and demonstrating care and concern by preventing mismatch of expectations. As pointed out by Merleau-Ponty (1962) such acts of reversing perspectives always work in two directions, stitching body-for-me and body-for-other by adopting a stance on self through the other or “body-for-me-for-other”. These acts also showed that the intercorporeal armature was not isolated to dyadic interactions but often expanded beyond interpersonal relationships to involve other team member who were gesturing and contributing to the creation of team presence and visibility. Thus, the emerging intercorporeality was rather an inter-team accomplishment.

5.2.2. Virtual intercorporeality: co-orientating

Another aspect of the intercorporeal patterning was the level of responsiveness that enacted a sense of orientation. The slow and unresponsive behaviours in the latter part of the relationship was associated with unmet expectations and intercorporeal fragmentation:

… so he’ll respond to you next day afternoon when the Indian office is closed and then you will ask for more clarification on the next day morning and he will get back to you in the afternoon the day after the next (Balik, July 2008).

Multiple similar comments from both teams showed that the relationship was not built only around mutual displays of presence, or as Merleau-Ponty (1962) contends the behaviours are not just about “appearances” but also about taking a stance manifested in displaying and perceiving certain orientation. In particular, the development of the harmonious relationship involved processes of co-orienting which were displaying one’s readiness to engage. Such mutual co-orienting was carried out through the tacit bodily engagements manifested in the actions and behaviours of collaboration. Such acts resembled the process of developing mutual postural congruence in co-located settings. Similarly, the levels of attentiveness and responsiveness between the two teams were tacitly adjusted on ongoing basis through their day-to-day interactions. In contrast, the fragmenting intercorporeality later in the relationship manifested itself in states of low priority and inattentiveness to the other breaking down the habituated interactive patterns and thereby expectations:

… These problems were brought to Paul’s attention and they asked him to interfere. He, however, probably was busy with other obligations and was not in a position to attend to these issues. He responded to their request quite late when ‘damage was done already’ (Madan, July 2008).

In addition, one important way through which this mutual orientation was enacted was the temporal patterning of interactions. Recognising the temporal alterity, and in this way heedfully accommodating the “other” was an important way to show one’s attentiveness and enthusiasm. In particular, a comment by Sean about his experience with another manager of an offshore team further highlighted this point:

He is the kind of phrase ‘a real blow buster’, you are not waiting for him to get back to you he is back to you before you press the ‘send’ button so he is really all over us and this is really a great contributing factor for the success of the project (Sean, July 2009).

This process of continuous attuning became visible in the interactive patterning comprising co-responding to requests and offers between the teams (Figure 3). In particular, in comparing the former versus the latter phases of the relationship, it transpired that the intercorporeal armature was constituted of a process of mutual attunement of speed of responding that established certain expectations and infused the collaboration with predictability and co-attentiveness. For instance, 8 out of 10 requests or questions were responded within 6.75 h during the first project, and only less than 3 out of 10 for the same time during the second project.

Figure 3. Response time frequency.

The average response time for the first project was 5 h, while for the second project it was significantly higher, i.e., 17.9 h. This represents a difference across the two projects of 259% (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Distribution of Response Frequencies.

Figure 4 shows that that the distribution of response times is more even during the first project, which also echoes the tighter patterning of reversibility. While it was not unusual to have certain delays in the first project as part of the ongoing relational dynamic, the sharp peaks in the second project were of different calibre and magnitude and were unexpected and difficult to re-adjust.

This process of co-orienting can be directly linked to the expressive bodies and the way they engage with each other in non-propositional and non-representational ways. Importantly, these were not discrete denotative articulations but rather tacit gestural attunement. Once habituated in day-to-day interactions, co-orientation becomes a disposition inherently constitutive of the relationship that governs subsequent interactions without the need to evoke previous ones (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, p. 131).

There were also many episodes of spontaneous engagements that conveyed a sense of enthusiasm and enacted reliability through linguistic expressions signalling and re-enforcing patterns of orientation:

Table

Paul: Hi Madan, are you available to take us and the call centre guys through the new system today? Sorry for the short notice. The call centre guys are only available at 12 Irish time. How does that suit you? Madan: Paul that should not be an issue… I will be available for the call. Let’s do it! (Email exchange between Madan and Paul, 09.12.2007)

One important observation is that the process of patterning in this virtual context was exacerbated by the distinct nature of reversibility. In contrast with Merleau-Ponty’s understanding of reversibility developed for co-located context, suggesting that the one who is seeing is also being seen, most virtual interactions introduce a degree of disconnect. In many situations overcoming this disconnect and lack of visuality in order to achieve continuity of co-responsiveness was supported by a number of linguistic gestures that were closing the interactive episodes:

Table

“Thanks for sending this so quickly” (Email from Paul to Madan, 10.08.2007). “Thanks for quick feedback Paul!” (Email from Balik to Paul, 03.12.2007) “Thanks for the update – looks good. Can we go for 10:30 on Monday for a call” (Email from Paul to Madan, 01.11. 2007)

Although such discursive acts have trivial role in co-located settings, they play a more significant role in virtual ones as they support the closure of conversations (as shown in), and acting as a form of recognition (Hancock, 2008) or acknowledgement (Hyde, 2006) of the other’s position. In other words, such linguistic gestures did not have a propositional value but were, instead, a form of displaying that served as acknowledgement and closure of the interactive episode. One of the team members has captured insightfully the importance of such linguistic gestures: “something as simple as not responding to an email ruined this project” (Sean, July 2009). This comment foregrounds the foundational role of the intercorporeal armature, but also its fragility showing that it might be disintegrated by a missing email that can be interpreted as an act of “turning away” of attention triggering disruption of the joint orientation.

5.2.3. Virtual intercorporeality patterning: co-investing

Another process of intercorporeal pattering transpired in the abrupt changes of the way the two teams were displaying their commitment to each other. In particular, the disintegration that took place later in the relationship was associated with asymmetrical investment of efforts and time, which engendered a sense of injustice “look I am not getting what I expected and I don’t think you should be getting what you expect and the only thing I have control over is money” (Paul, July 2008).

Similar to the patterning of co-orienting during the first project, there were no explicit discussions of how much commitment one should display but this was tacitly negotiated through day-to-day interactions. In particular, it was pointed out that “time and attention” (Balik, July 2008) were the currency through which a sense of commitment and care were co-enacted over time and which made the relationship fluent and harmonious. For instance, a comparison of the frequency of email exchanges across the two projects shows a significant decrease in the second project from 5.7 to 3.2 emails on average per day (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Comparison of email frequencies.

In a very similar manner to co-orienting, co-investing was produced through bodily displays that became visible in the manner purposeful interactions were organised. As pointed out by Merleau-Ponty, the process of patterning emerges through the anticipation of the actions of the other and responding to timing, proximity, speed, and position. This dimension of patterning reveals how mutual attuning is interactively accomplished in relation to commitment demonstrated in the amount of time and attention collaborating partners provide and receive.

The interactions between the two teams were also marked by friendly engagements “small talk” that were also forms of gesturing interest and attention to the other:

… To give you an example, initially when I was speaking with Paul there was only business and technical talks, and now we talk about Indian festivals, whole relationship with the client has improved and in terms of the relationship there is a lot more trust between us. (Madan, December 2007).

The need for displaying and connecting on an intercorporeal level, was often motivating and underlying the denotative and purposeful exchanges: “You have to communicate even if you don’t have anything to say” (Sean, October 2008). Being there and engaging by giving and taking time and attention manifested relational co-investment that started waning away in the latter part of the relationship:

I flagged this concern to you in our conf calls and we tried to organise regular meeting between Anthony and Madan, but we couldn’t get time and commitment from your side”. (Balik to Purple, commercial dispute correspondence, 05.04.2008).

The pattern of co-investing was also performed through frequent requests and offers of help that, however, rarely materialised in actuality, they served a function of displaying commitment and reversal of perspectives:

Table

“Can you guys help us in understanding these classes and their purpose?” (Email fromMadan to Purple, 29.08.2007). “Please feel free to touch base with me in case of issues/concerns/feedbacks” (Email by Madan to the list of developers, 13.09.2007). “Hi Madan – Paul mentioned you might have some questions about the knowledgebase – if that’s the case feel free to give me a call or e-mail if there’s anything I can help with” (Email from Kevin to Madan, 12.11. 2007) “Looking for any ideas/suggestions WRT encryption on the database. A few things come to mind so any feedback would be appreciated - What needs to be encrypted? First thoughts here are anything…Fire suggestions this way: o)” (Dave to the list of developers, 11.09.2007)

Similar to the acts of enacting predictability, these gestures work through reversing perspectives, but being inherently two-directional (Merleau-Ponty, 1962), they also gestured care to the other.

There were also other less interactive forms of displaying referring to the work taking place in offline settings. Sensitised by Chatelet’s work (Chatelet, 1999) that interprets written text as frozen gestures indexing back to the authoring bodies, we see evidence of treating different forms of digital text (emails, project documentation, etc.) as inscriptions of time and attention that signified diligence and commitment. These gestures, as expressive things (Waldenfels, 2000), were especially significant in the periods of silence between episodes of online interactions. At the same time, in the second project such digital texts deteriorated in quality being recognised as forms of negligence and complacency:

… The other developers and myself have all had to spend time correcting these problems on each of our instals before being able to deploy them to work on other parts of the site. (Email from Kevin to Madan, 28.02.2008).

In summary, this analysis uncovered forms of gesturing and expressing through which the three dimensions of co-presencing, co-orienting, and co-investing constituted and sustained the intercorporeal armature underpinning the smooth and harmonious collaboration between Purple and IndiaSoft.

6. Discussion

The findings of this study show how Purple and IndiaSoft managed to develop an amicable and resonant relationship and productive collaboration in an exclusively virtual context mostly relying on email communication. This study advances the claims that well-working collaborations are either typical only for co-located settings where virtual collaborations are disembodied and less authentic (Wilson et al., 2008, 2013), or that they do not require actual embodied engagements (Lindemann & Schünemann, 2020). The analysis above, instead, shows how the human bodies are rematerialised in virtual contexts playing important roles in enacting the collaborative relationship. These findings offer valuable insights for both advancing our understanding of virtual collaboration, and developing a novel perspective of virtual intercorporeality. Therefore, below, I theoretically elaborate the two main research questions of the study: 1. What are the particular processes that constitute intercorporeality in inter-organisational virtual collaboration? 2. How can we conceptualise intercorporeality in a virtual context?

6.1. Constitutive intercorporeal processes of inter-organisational virtual collaboration

The fluctuating relationship between the two companies allowed to compare and contrast how different bodily expressions enacted and supported the relationship during its more harmonious and productive phase vis-à-vis the period of relationship deterioration. In particular, the analysis delineated three central processes – co-presencing, co-orienting, and co-investing – that charted the specificity and nature of intercorporeality serving as armature for such a type of inter-organisational collaborations. The findings also showed that these three processes were tacitly enacted in parallel with and through the purposeful day-to-day interactions. Following the detailed discussion of these three processes, I suggest the following theoretical propositions:

P1. Meaningful and harmonious inter-organisational collaborations are sustained by processes of co-presencing, co-orienting and co-investing that help participants carry out together their day-to-day activities. Such a virtual collaboration is a (partly) tacit, dynamic and situated process of mutual attunement that is interactively accomplished.

The main theoretical proposition is corroborated by extant literature on virtual and distributed collaboration. For instance, Einola and Alvesson (2019) discuss the failure of developing a shared understanding about the expected level of commitment and investment pointing to the need for actively aligning the level of investment among collaborating parties. Other studies highlight the role of mutual focus of attention and frequency of interactions for cultivating more coherent interorganisational relationships (Metiu & Rothbard, 2013), as well as, the importance of maintaining presence awareness between virtual team members (Malhotra & Majchrzak, 2014). This study also expands the common focus of virtual studies on how presence or “being there” is shared and sustained (Kim, 2001) by emphasising the importance of “how” one is being present that is demonstrated by the degree of orientation and level of investment. These processes of co-enacting intercorporeality are relevant for interorganisational collaborative context but are different from those in different virtual contexts. For instance, Ekdahl and Ravn (2022) show how players in competitive e-sport games develop mutual intercorporeal awareness that do not require synchronisation and mutual attunement of presence, orientation, and investment. Importantly, this process of mutual attunement is essentially tacit in nature and is only partly consciously and discursively available, resembling a dance in which partners develop a sense about each other through moving together. Just as different types of dance can manifest different degrees of proximity, pace, and rhythm, collaborative relationships are tacitly negotiated and interactively accomplished (Schultze & Brooks, 2019).

6.2. Towards a perspective of virtual intercorporeality

The adoption and operationalisation of Merleau-Ponty’s perspective of intercorporeality to virtual settings also offered valuable insights for advancing a perspective of virtual intercorporeality. Thus, the remaining part of the Discussion section is devoted to addressing the second research question. Table 7 summarises these insights that are synthesised and elaborated in four main theoretical propositions below.

Table 7. Towards perspective on virtual intercorporeality.

Concept	Description (Merleau-Ponty)	Theoretical advances: virtual intercorporeality
Body	More than physical and individual. It is a material-semiotic process enacting both body-image (body for other) and body-schema (body for me); both sentient and sensible, open and completed through the ‘other’.	The virtual body is truly material-semiotic and processual, instantiated (not represented) by novel forms of displaying and gesturing. It remains open and porous process enacting an enlarged social fabric. It experiences others and world in new ways and makes itself experienceable in new ways. The virtual body is enlarged through enactment of intercorporeal processes (Proposition No 2).
Reversibility	Suggests that self and other are ontologically related, which means that they are intertwined rather than being merely connected. The outcome is a process characterised by ‘identity in difference’ that is distinct from simple reciprocity or complete fusion.	Virtual reversibility is characterised by a type of disconnect that foregrounds the need for temporal sustenance and connection. Mutual attunement and intertwinement then become more challenging highlighting the importance of temporal alterity and structural fragility of virtual interactions (Proposition No 3).
Expression	For Merleau-Ponty all ‘human action is expression’ including movements and gestures that make things public and attune bodies to each other.	In virtual settings, and particularly supported by leaner media such as email, bodily expressions display through the ways digital texts are produced, organised and shared in the process of co-responding. These might include rhythm, speed, force and direction, as well as, such that might have a more discrete articulation and particular symbolic significance (Proposition 4).
Language	It includes the symbolic system representing thoughts, but also accomplishes them, having important spontaneous and gestural role.	In virtual context, language and specifically digital text, become a multi-layered medium for interactions, which is conducive to different types of gestures and bodily displays. The pragmatic and gestural dimension of language is often taking place through or underneath the denotative use of language (Propositions 4.1 & 4.2).
Digitaltechnology	Merleau-Ponty’s work predates the Digital era and many of his interpreters struggle to explain the relationship between digital technologies and intercorporeal processes.	Technology rematerialises intercorporeality in important ways. It enacts anew the ways body-subjects experience and become experienceable, and transforms both sentient and sensible aspects of intersubjective interactions (Proposition 5).

6.2.1. Virtual body

The collaborative experiences illustrated in the analysis were sentient displaying both positive and negative affects. Following Merleau-Ponty’s understanding that to be affected inevitably entails the ability to affect, the findings show that human bodies are not just props or passive receptors behind computer screens but are interactively involved with the “other”. The displays and gestures are not just representations of the body but are the body itself that is rematerialised through technology, echoing Merleau-Ponty’s claim that “symptoms are not just traces of the illness but the illness itself” (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, p. 190). Thus, the human body transcends the physical and virtual divide as it is actively involved with gesturing and displaying in virtual context resonating with Merleau-Ponty’s claim that the human body is there where “there is something to be done” (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, pp. 248–250). These insights challenge the understanding that in virtual collaboration bodies are confined to their own physicality and physical location in front of the screen and, thus, playing a passive role of neutral interface. Instead, the empirical data showed that participants were very active through technology and are indeed “in the screen” rather than just in front of it. Such forms of virtual embodiment are enacted through gestures and acts of displaying that convey magnitudes of attunement very similar to loudness of the voice and length of pause that cannot be expressed without the active role of the body. These reflections lead to the following theoretical proposition:

P2 The human body is rematerialised in virtual settings and its expressivity is expanded and enacted through distinct forms of displaying and gesturing.

This proposition partly aligns with other studies that share the belief of an ontological connection and intertwinement between self and other in virtual settings promoting the idea of “virtual touch” (Springgay, 2005). Whereas such studies focus on the lived and sensual experiences that are similar to being affected by emotionally charged messages, songs or poems, the findings in this study go beyond such claims showing the actual bodily activities of affecting in virtual context. Ultimately, this study shows how bodies act to come together through technology leading to the argument that “virtualised” intercorporeality is an authentic but distinct way of being-with-others (as argued by Kim, 2001) that should be examined and theorised in its own right. In this way, this study advances more recent attempts to apply the perspective of intercorporeality to virtual context (Dolezal, 2020; Ekdahl & Ravn, 2022).

6.2.2. Virtual reversibility

The findings showed that virtual interactions introduce a type of disconnect in the nature of reversibility, or being subject and object at the same time, characterised in “seeing and being seen” or “affecting and being affected”. While being sensible/sentient and perceiving/perceptible is a major ontological trait of intercorporeality, the inherent reversibility and its double openness reveal a different characteristic in virtual context. Namely, the connection between perceiving and perceivable typical for face-to-face encounters is more difficult to achieve in virtual context. For instance, in co-located settings reversibility happens without requiring deliberate efforts where the mutual gaze forms reversible loops comprised of immediate acknowledgements, confirmations, and verifications (Vidolov, 2022). In contrast, the findings show that a receipt of an email cannot be assumed and requires an explicit acknowledgement foregrounding the importance of temporal alterity and structural fragility of virtual interactions. These insights lead us to the following theoretical proposition:

P3 The nature of reversible connection between being sensed/perceived and sensing/perceiving determines the distinctive characteristic of virtual interactions and triggers the emergence of new gestures and forms of displaying.

Many studies corroborate some of the implications coming out of this theoretical proposition such as that virtual interactions are more effortful (Hinds & Kiesler, 2002; Malhotra & Majchrzak, 2014) and that they require more deliberate effort (Walther et al., 2015). Whereas, the need for predictability and temporal coordination have been acknowledged in studies examining the human body in co-located collaboration (e.g., Goodwin, 2000; Heath & Luff, 1992), this study makes first strides towards a more in-depth understanding of these processes in virtual context.

6.2.3. Virtual expressions and language

The findings revealed five different relationships between language and bodily expressivity. First, the interactions between IndiaSoft and Purple showed that what really mattered for the relationship was how language (digital text) was produced and exchanged enacting different type of meaningfulness through bodily displays. This process concerned the creating and organising of digital text or “doing of language” in terms of its speed, rhythm, force, and frequency that were identifiable only on continua through quantifying interactive patterns. Second, it also transpired that participants often used the traditional understanding of language as a façade or pretext for engaging and performing bodily displays, which was carried out underneath denotative and propositional discursive acts. Such a use of digital language can be called “doing underneath language”. Despite the assumed primacy of language as propositional content, the testimonies of research respondents unambiguously showed that in virtual context the underlying bodily displays have an opaque but often primary situated significance. Third, certain non-propositional linguistic gestures play a particular role for re-connecting the intercorporeal reversibility. For instance, on many instances, the collaborators used small talk or flatteries to either close interactive episodes or display presence. Importantly, the functions these gestures performed differ from the ones typical for co-located settings, and instead emerge in relation to the specificity of virtual intercorporeality as “new doings of language”. These gestures are usually not purely spontaneous as those that emerge in the process of co-responding, and in fact exhibit a more strategic orientation. Fourth, the findings also illuminated linguistic articulations that were not typical denotative expressions, but instead resonated with the pragmatic understanding of language as social action (Austin, 1971). These included acts that offered help or gave symbolic gifts, which displayed particular investment and commitment to the other party. Thus, such use of language illuminated “doings through language”. Finally, the analysis also pointed to the role of textual artefacts and documents that inscribed different magnitudes of diligence and efforts. Such “frozen doings through language” displayed care and commitment to the other. These rich and granular insights on bodily expressivity through digital text suggest the following theoretical propositions:

P4 The ways through which digital texts are produced, organised and shared in email co-responding co-enact intercorporeality.

P4.1 The role of body manifests in, through and underneath digital texts as “doings of” and “doings through” language. Bodily expressivity displays through rhythm, timing, effort, speed and direction of co-responding, as well as, through certain discrete linguistic gestures.

P4.2 Bodily expressions can be either spontaneously displayed in the process of co-responding or can have a more strategic orientation.

Although some studies that are sensitive to the embodied foundation of virtual collaboration have attended to the role of language and digital text, their focus has been often on the representational and denotative dimension or language as exchanges of discrete meanings (Springgay, 2005; Walther, 1995). For instance, some studies explored the role of emoticons as symbolic representations of bodily attitudes (Walther & D’Addario, 2001). Thus, these granular theoretical insights can help recognise the gestural expressivity of more denotative uses of language in virtual collaboration (Keating, 2017). One explanation for the difficulty to recognise the embodied and gestural dimension of language might be the illusion of ordinary language as “absolutely transparent expression that has achieved its goal” (Merleau-Ponty, 1973, p. 116). These theoretical propositions also offer a much more nuanced and layered understanding of the relationship between language and body, which can advance recent attempts to reveal the embodied basis of technology-mediated linguistic practices (Hafermalz & Riemer, 2020).

6.2.4. Virtuality and technology

The findings of the study showed that technology was not merely a prosthetic extension or augmentation of bodily senses, but a form of rematerialisation of the human body reconfiguring how it is experienced and how it is experiencing others. This not only involved a change of the conventional senses of visibility and touch, but also afforded a particular way of self-other becoming. In particular, the findings showed how the technology was used and adjusted to afford the process of mutual displaying through which the intertwining between self and other emerges. It is important to point out that technology here is not perceived in instrumental terms, but as a condition for possibility, and therefore co-constitutive, of the emergent intercorporeality. The detailed illustration of the fundamental role of technology leads to the following theoretical proposition:

P5 Digital technologies transform bodily senses in particular ways and rematerialise the body in virtual context by transforming its capacity to express, sense and be sensed.

This proposition is supported by other studies that recognise the transformative and rematerialising role of technology (Beane & Orlikowski, 2015; Introna & Hayes, 2011). While few studies recognise the sociomaterial entanglement of agencies between technology and body (Ihde, 2002; Introna & Hayes, 2011; Marchant & O’Donohoe, 2019), this study extends this view by offering much more granular insights into the particular ways bodies are rematerialised in virtual context. Importantly, this paper also challenges studies inspired by Merleau-Ponty’s work that fail to recognise the mutual incorporation between technology and body (Dolezal, 2020; Dreyfus, 2008; Fuchs, 2014). The findings also further some recent endeavours to show the importance of bodily lived experiences in “determining” engagements with technologies (e.g., Chughtai, 2021). In particular, the insights of this paper showing how technology rematerialises intercorporeality as a process between body image and body schema suggest that there is a more complex recursive relationship between lived experiences, technology, self, and other. For instance, it can be argued that not only embodied lived experiences shape uses of technology, but also technology shapes and rematerialises the body in the broader intercorporeal sense of enacting new identities and intersubjectivities.

7. Conclusion

This paper contributes to research on virtual collaboration that has recently foregrounded the question of the human body. The findings of this study refute both claims that relationships of togetherness can be developed without the active role of the body and that embodied activities are limited to co-located and physical interactions. Instead, the study shows the importance of active bodily gestures and displays that transcend the physical-virtual divide to develop an intercorporeal armature through co-presencing, co-orienting, and co-investing. These inter-related processes resemble a continuous mutual attunement that creates tacit expectations of what is possible and appropriate in purposeful virtual interactions. Thus, the paper contributes to an understanding of virtual collaboration as co-enacting intercorporeality.

These insights help advance a novel perspective of virtual intercorporeality by drawing out four main theoretical propositions. One key contribution is granting the virtual body an ontological status. In particular, drawing on the view that the body is a material-semiotic process between self and other, the paper argues for understanding virtual embodiment as an enlargement of the body beyond physicality. Virtual embodiment, however, is neither a matter of a prosthetic extension of co-located practices nor an abstract entanglement of bodily and technological agencies. It is, instead, the active signifying body whose expressivity is rematerialised through technology. Bodily expressions, for instance, are enacted through speed, rhythm, force, and frequency of co-responding that are usually identifiable only on continua producing intertwined patterns. These insights also offer a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between technology and language. In particular, this study foregrounds the non-representational processes of doing and organising language and text through which bodily expressivity operates in email communication.

This paper also offers a number of important practical implications: First, not everything can be explained, reified, and transmitted to our interlocutors. Relational collaboration follows a dance-like pattern. There are gestures (strategic or spontaneous) that play important ostensive role in displaying basic orientations and commitments that are dynamically negotiated over time. Second, language is also a movement and a way of displaying things that we cannot or do not want to articulate explicitly. Third, the process of mutual attuning is a tacit process, which becomes an interactive pattern over time. While we cannot easily steer and control this pattern as we are already immersed in it, we can set its trajectory and momentum by being proactive and generous with our time and attention especially in the beginning of the collaboration. Fourth, while ideas and conversations are part of the collaborative activities that dominate our attention, they also constitute the relational dialogue that transpires in the geometry and frequency of interactions. Fifth, the currency of this relational dialogue comprises time, attention, and help that convey presence, orientation, diligence, effort, and care; and co-enact a sense of mutuality, response-ability, and readiness. Sixth, virtual collaboration is very fragile and ignoring minor gestures can lead to pattern disintegration and relational breakdown. We are all familiar with the feelings of anxiety caused by a slow or absent response that is usually interpreted as a gesture of tension rather than a missing piece of information. Finally, we should be sensitive to the other’s perspective and display our awareness of it in order to sustain a mutual manifestness of what is appropriate and possible.

A limitation of this study was the focus on email co-responding, and the missing insights from the other communication channels such as Skype calls and chats. Although Skype was not excessively utilised, having access to such an additional source of data might have provided a richer illustration of how intercorporeality was co-enacted.

Future research might consider how virtual intercorporeality is enacted through different technologies. For instance, of particular interest would be to explore to what degree social media (e.g., Twitter) interactions might be a basis for developing and sustaining productive relational armature; and what practices of displaying emerge through such technologies. The findings in this study can be also compared with other collaborative arrangements that might exhibit different intercorporeal geometries. Furthermore, the application of Merleau-Ponty’s perspective to virtual settings might further the attempts of recent studies to theorise the relationship between affect, body, and technology (e.g., Stewart & Schultze, 2019).

Acknowledgements

The ideas in this article were developed and written up during my employment at University of Münster, and I am particularly indebted to Stefan Klein for his continuous and unconditional support and understanding. During part of this process, I was also supported by Horizon 2020 ERC work programme grant number 771217. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the Senior Editor Ojelanki Ngwenyama and the anonymous Associate Editor for the guidance through the revision process, as well as to the anonymous reviewers for providing highly supportive and thought-provoking comments, which proved instrumental in developing this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. The notion of enactment is used in the sense of “to constitute, actuate, perform” (Oxford English Dictionary).

2. Although Merleau-Ponty often uses body image and body schema interchangeably (Weiss, 1999), their complex and consequential inter-twining is manifested in the “phantom limb” and “rubber hand illusion” phenomena (Lenggenhager et al., 2007), and more recently considered at the root of different neurological psychopathologies (Fuchs, 2009).

3. Merleau-Ponty uses the term body-subject to overcome the understanding of the human body as merely an object, and to problematise the body-mind and subject-object dualisms.

4. It is important to note that Merleau-Ponty doesn’t exclude the possibility for analytical perception when, for instance, we engage in philosophical reflection.

Appendix

Iterative coding of email archive comprised of more than 500 emails (see Section ‘Methods). Table A1 shows the codes and their descriptions along with examples and frequencies across the two projects.

Table A1. Coding used in the empirical analysis with descriptions, examples, and frequencies.

Intercorporeal processes	Gestures/Displays	Project 1	Project 2
Co-presencing enacting mutual visibility.	Through Skype icon Small talk	Continuous 13	Fragmented 3
Co-orientation displaying readiness to engage.	Speed of response Closing episodes Reversing perspectives	5 hours 23 17	18 hours 4 2
Co-investment displaying care and commitment	Amount of time and attention Offering help Giving symbolic gifts	5.7 emails/day 17 8	3.2 emails/day 4 0