Prisma ODS Revista Científica Multidisciplinar
Volumen 5, Número 1 - Año 2026
Página | 1
PORTADA
(Elaborada por la revista)
Prisma ODS Revista Científica Multidisciplinar
Volumen 5, Número 1 - Año 2026
Página | 424
From Absolute, Relative and Field Spaces to Relational
Space: Epistemological Foundations and Reconfiguration of
Organizational Space
De los Espacios Absoluto, Relativo y de Campo al Espacio Relacional:
Fundamentos Epistemológicos y Reconfiguración del Espacio
Organizacional
Augusto Renato Pérez Mayo
renatomayo@hotmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1094-3283
Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos
Cuernavaca, Morelos - México
Nohemí Roque Nieto
nohemi.roque@hotmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5433-9478
Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos
Cuernavaca, Morelos - México
Artículo recibido: 23/02/2026
Aceptado para publicación: 24/03/2026
Conflictos de Intereses: Ninguno que declarar
Prisma ODS Revista Científica Multidisciplinar
Volumen 5, Número 1 - Año 2026
Página | 425
ABSTRACT
This article is a conceptual and theoretical study that develops a transdisciplinary
analytical framework to understand organizational space as a strategic dimension of human
resource sustainability. Organizational space is analyzed not only as a physical container, but
as a relational configuration —spatiality— in which material dispositions, social interactions,
symbolic meanings, and power relations converge. Based on epistemological underpinnings
from nomothetic and ideographic sciences and classical and contemporary organizational
theory, the article argues that spatial configurations exist and coexist articulated or
unarticulated, actively organizational culture, employee well-being, and sustainability
outcomes. Based on transdisciplinary organizational theory (Pérez Mayo & Vallejo-Trujillo,
2018), organizational space is conceptualized as a dynamic and constitutive dimension of
organizational life, rather than a neutral context. The article contributes to research on human
resource sustainability by offering a coherent analytical framework that integrates the physical,
social, and symbolic dimensions of organizational space. Its main objective is the construction
of an analytical category and the articulation of a transdisciplinary framework. In this sense, it
is inscribed in the tradition of conceptual development within organizational theory, rather than
in research aimed at testing hypotheses.
Keywords: organizational space, relational spatiality, socio-spatial theory, materiality
in organizations, relational ontology
Prisma ODS Revista Científica Multidisciplinar
Volumen 5, Número 1 - Año 2026
Página | 426
RESUMEN
Este artículo es un estudio conceptual y teórico que desarrolla un marco analítico
transdisciplinario para comprender el espacio organizacional como una dimensión estratégica
de la sostenibilidad de los recursos humanos. El espacio organizacional se analiza no solo como
un contenedor físico, sino como una configuración relacional —espacialidad— en la que
convergen disposiciones materiales, interacciones sociales, significados simbólicos y
relaciones de poder. A partir de fundamentos epistemológicos provenientes de las ciencias
nomotéticas e ideográficas, así como de la teoría organizacional clásica y contemporánea, el
artículo sostiene que las configuraciones espaciales existen y coexisten de manera articulada o
desarticulada, influyendo activamente en la cultura organizacional, el bienestar de los
empleados y los resultados en sostenibilidad. Con base en la teoría organizacional
transdisciplinaria (Pérez Mayo & Vallejo-Trujillo, 2018), el espacio organizacional se
conceptualiza como una dimensión dinámica y constitutiva de la vida organizacional, más que
como un contexto neutral. El artículo contribuye a la investigación sobre la sostenibilidad de
los recursos humanos al ofrecer un marco analítico coherente que integra las dimensiones
físicas, sociales y simbólicas del espacio organizacional. Su objetivo principal es la
construcción de una categoría analítica y la articulación de un marco transdisciplinario. En este
sentido, se inscribe en la tradición del desarrollo conceptual dentro de la teoría organizacional,
más que en la investigación orientada a la comprobación de hipótesis.
Palabras clave: espacio organizacional, espacialidad relacional, teoría socioespacial,
materialidad en las organizaciones, ontología relacional
Prisma ODS Revista Científica Multidisciplinar
Volumen 5, Número 1 - Año 2026
Página | 427
INTRODUCTION
This article addresses a clear research problem: the conceptual marginalization of space in
human resource and organizational sustainability studies. While space has traditionally been
treated as a technical, architectural, or logistical variable, this study argues that organizational
space constitutes a central analytical category for understanding organizational dynamics,
human well-being, and sustainability.
The objective of this study is to develop a conceptual and analytical framework that repositions
the organizational space as a transdisciplinary category relevant to the sustainability of human
resources. Consequently, the research questions guiding the study are:
a) How can organizational space be conceptualized as a transdisciplinary analytical
category?
b) In what ways does spatiality influence the sustainability of human resources and
organizational dynamics?
From a transdisciplinary perspective, organizational phenomena cannot be adequately
explained through isolated disciplinary perspectives. Pérez Mayo and Vallejo-Trujillo (2018)
argue that organizational theory must move towards integrative frameworks capable of
articulating physical, symbolic, cultural, and relational dimensions. This epistemological
position supports the present study. Rather than making deterministic claims, this paper
conceptualizes spatial configurations as analytically grounded tendencies that shape patterns
of interaction, power relations, psychosocial experiences, and organizational sustainability. In
this sense, the organizational space emerges as a strategic domain in which culture, leadership,
well-being, and performance are co-produced.
DEVELOPMENT
Literature Review
Epistemological Foundations of Space in the Nomothetic Sciences
The concept of space has historically raised three major epistemological issues: its nature, its
reality, and its structure. Classical debates between relative and absolute space—from Leibniz
to Newton—already reveal that space was never a neutral concept.
The shift introduced by field theory and general relativity established that space cannot exist
independently of relational dynamics (Einstein & Infeld, 2005). This epistemological
Prisma ODS Revista Científica Multidisciplinar
Volumen 5, Número 1 - Año 2026
Página | 428
transformation is foundational for organizational analysis, as it allows space to be understood
as relational, contextual, and meaningful.
Epistemological Approaches to Space: Relative, Absolute, and Field-Based Conceptions
Relative space conceptualizes space as a positional quality of material objects, a view
associated with Leibniz, who rejected the notion of empty space as an independent entity
(Leibniz, 1715/2002). Space, in this sense, represents the order of coexistence among objects.
Maxwell later reinforced this position by arguing that all knowledge of space and time is
essentially relative.
In contrast, absolute space, advanced by Aristotle and Newton, conceives space as an
independent container of material objects. Newton argued that absolute space exists
independently of external references.
The emergence of general relativity transformed these views by establishing that space cannot
exist independently of matter and energy. Physical phenomena such as gravitation are
explained as variations in the metric structure of a field (Einstein & Infeld, 2005). In this article,
these physical theories are not applied as explanatory models for organizations, but as
epistemological references supporting a relational and non-substantialist understanding of
space.
Space Beyond the Physical Sciences, Minkowski’s (1908) formulation of spacetime as a
unified construct reinforced the relational conception of space. Although developed within
physics, this abstraction provided epistemological foundations for social sciences, where space
is understood as contextual, dynamic, and socially constructed rather than neutral (Nolte,
2021).
Explanatory capacity of the model in the face of existing socio-spatial theories
Sociospatial theories have contributed significantly to overcoming the conception of space as
a neutral container, emphasizing its socially constructed, symbolic and relational character.
However, much of this literature has been developed in fields such as critical geography, urban
sociology or cultural studies, where space is mainly analyzed as a product of social practices,
discourses, workplace violence, discrimination or power relations.
The socio-spatial literature has provided fundamental frameworks for understanding space as
a socially constructed, symbolic and relational phenomenon. In studies of the organization,
Prisma ODS Revista Científica Multidisciplinar
Volumen 5, Número 1 - Año 2026
Página | 429
various works have explored how spatial configurations affect work practices, identity, and
power (Våland & Georg, 2018; Weinfurtner & Seidl, 2019).
Ontological limitation: space as a product rather than as a constitutive dimension
Many sociospatial theories conceive space as the result of social processes, that is, therefore
structured by economic, cultural or political dynamics. In contrast, the model proposed in this
article adopts a constitutive relational ontology: space is not only produced by the organization
but actively participates in the production of the organization itself.
Inspired by the overcoming of the absolute conception of space (Einstein & Infeld, 2005),
organizational space is understood as a dynamic configuration in which the human converge
in materiality, symbolism, interaction and psychosocial effects. This perspective allows us to
analyze how spatiality not only reflects culture and power, but also configures practices,
identities, and organizational results that define organizations. For example, an organization
that in the discourse speaks of non-discrimination, non-violence in the workplace and is the
opposite. They create spaces to only cover up these organizational anomalies and that
normalize and institutionalize violence in all its types. Eso implica que los espacios se llenan
de todo lo malo y lo bueno.
Dimensional limitation: absence of systematic analytic integration
Most socio-spatial approaches emphasize specific dimensions —for example, symbolism,
control, or materiality— without articulating them in a systematic integrative framework
applicable to organizational analysis.
The proposed four-dimensional model—spatial configuration, symbolic spatiality, relational
dynamics, and psychosocial effects—offers an integrated analytical structure that:
• It connects the physical with the symbolic.
• It links the relationship with well-being.
• It allows analyzing coherence or dissonance between spatial design and
organizational culture.
• It facilitates its operationalization in future empirical research.
This integration overcomes fragmented approaches by providing a cross-sectional analytical
matrix.
Explanatory limitation with respect to organizational sustainability
Prisma ODS Revista Científica Multidisciplinar
Volumen 5, Número 1 - Año 2026
Página | 430
Socio-spatial theories rarely make explicit links to human resource sustainability. Their focus
is usually on power, discourse, or social production of space, but not on how spatial
configurations systematically influence engagement, well-being, or organizational continuity.
This model introduces an explicit connection between spatiality and sustainability, by
incorporating psychosocial effects as a structural dimension of the analysis. In this way,
organizational space becomes a transversal strategic variable that:
• It shapes perceptions of belonging.
• It influences psychosocial balance.
• It affects satisfaction and commitment (Uscanga Arévalo et al., 2021).
• It indirectly affects long-term sustainability.
Thus, the contribution lies not only in reaffirming that the space is socially constructed, but in
demonstrating that it is organizationally constitutive and strategically relevant for
sustainability. The so-called "spatial turn" in social sciences established that space is dynamic,
relational and meaningful. However, this article proposes an additional shift: from the
epistemological recognition of space to its formalization as a structured organizational
analytical category. To do this, you must:
1. Define clear analytical dimensions.
2. Articulate them with organizational theory.
3. Explicitly link them to sustainability.
To establish bases for its future empirical operationalization.
In this sense, the additional explanatory capacity of the model lies in its character:
4. Ontologically relational.
5. Analytically structured.
6. Organizationally specific.
7. Strategically linked to sustainability.
Thus, the proposed model expands the existing socio-spatial theories by:
• Repositioning space as a constitutive dimension of the organization.
• Integrate physical, symbolic, relational, and psychosocial dimensions into a
coherent framework.
Prisma ODS Revista Científica Multidisciplinar
Volumen 5, Número 1 - Año 2026
Página | 431
• Establish a systematic bridge between spatiality and sustainability of human
resources.
• To provide a conceptual architecture susceptible to future empirical
operationalization.
Therefore, its contribution is not merely rhetorical or metaphorical, but structural and
analytical: it offers a conceptual matrix capable of explaining how different spatial
configurations generate differential conditions of interaction, meaning, healthy spaces and
well-being, influencing organizational sustainability.
Organizational Space and Productivity: From Scientific Management to Human
Relations Theory
Frederick Taylor (1911) identified inefficiencies arising from poorly designed workspaces,
arguing that worker selection alone was insufficient without scientifically organized
environments. While focused on efficiency, Taylor implicitly acknowledged the relevance of
spatial organization.
Elton Mayo (1968) expanded this perspective by demonstrating that emotional and spatial
conditions influence worker performance and well-being. The Hawthorne studies revealed that
spatiality could be systematically examined, although technical methods alone could not fully
explain human behavior (Merlí, 2004).
Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939) showed that lighting, fatigue, and monotony interact with
spatial conditions in complex ways.
From a complex perspective, organizations operate as dynamic systems characterized by non-
linearity and interdependence. Guerrero Sánchez, Guerrero Grajeda, and Pérez Mayo (2021)
conceptualize organizations as complex systems in which everyday interactions are shaped by
structural and spatial conditions. These findings support a relational interpretation of
organizational space, where spatial arrangements interact with social and emotional variables
rather than determining outcomes directly.
This perspective moves the analysis beyond technical efficiency and situates organizational
space within broader social and cultural dynamics.
Organizational Space and Human Resource Sustainability
Prisma ODS Revista Científica Multidisciplinar
Volumen 5, Número 1 - Año 2026
Página | 432
This article explicitly defines sustainability as human resource and organizational
sustainability, emphasizing long-term well-being, commitment, and ethical organizational
design.
Empirical research conducted by Pérez Mayo and colleagues demonstrates that organizational
commitment and job satisfaction are closely linked to structural and cultural conditions
(Uscanga Arévalo et al., 2021). From this perspective, organizational space functions as a
strategic lever that shapes perceptions of belonging, recognition, and psychosocial balance.
Spatial configurations that enable interaction, autonomy, and symbolic recognition contribute
to sustainable human resource practices, whereas poorly designed spaces may undermine
morale and well-being. Thus, organizational space is repositioned as an analytical variable
transversal to sustainability and human resource research.
Methodological Positioning and Future Research Directions
In response to the reviewers’ observations, this study explicitly defines its methodological
positioning as a conceptual and theoretical investigation. The article adopts a qualitative,
interpretive, and transdisciplinary approach, synthesizing literature from physics,
organizational studies, and sustainability research.
The proposed analytical framework organizes organizational space into four dimensions:
a) spatial configuration,
b) symbolic spatiality,
c) relational dynamics, and
d) psychosocial effects.
Pérez Mayo and Roque Nieto (2025) emphasize that transdisciplinarity functions as an
epistemological bridge integrating scientific, social, and humanistic knowledge. Following this
logic, future research may operationalize this framework through case studies, ethnographies
of workspaces, discourse analysis, and spatial mapping combined with interviews.
On methodological positioning
The observation regarding the descriptive or philosophical nature of the methodological section
allows us to specify more clearly the nature of the design adopted. The present study does not
respond to empirical logic, but to a methodology of theoretical construction based on
epistemological and conceptual synthesis. Consequently, its objective is not to describe data
Prisma ODS Revista Científica Multidisciplinar
Volumen 5, Número 1 - Año 2026
Página | 433
collection or analysis procedures, but to make explicit the process of integration, articulation
and conceptual formalization of different theoretical frameworks.
The research is part of the tradition of theoretical development in organizational studies, where
the contribution lies in conceptual clarification, systematic integration, and expansion of the
explanatory capacity of the field category (Cornelissen, 2017; Jaakkola, 2020; Whetten, 1989).
From this perspective, rigor is not evaluated by criteria of statistical validity, but through
ontological coherence, logical consistency, conceptual delimitation and heuristic capacity. The
manuscript systematically articulates four theoretical domains:
• Theory of space (particularly in its relational turn),
• Organizational studies,
• Contemporary approaches to human resource sustainability,
• Relational epistemology.
This integration responds to the logic of analytical convergence aimed at the construction of a
transversal organizational category, —the organizational space— conceived as a constitutive
dimension and not merely contextual. Such an approach is consistent with the principles of
theoretical construction that emphasize the need to clearly define constructs, conceptual
relationships, and differentiated contributions with respect to existing frameworks (Makadok
et al., 2018).
However, we recognize that the theoretical selection process, the conceptual inclusion criteria,
and the integrative synthesis logic could have been more explicitly formalized as a conceptual
methodology, including a systematic description of:
• Criteria of ontological coherence,
• Principles of interdisciplinary integration,
• Justification of the analytical limits of the model,
• Delimitation of its explanatory scope.
A greater formalization in these terms would have helped to clarify that the study adopts a
design typical of advanced conceptual organizational theory, whose central purpose is to
expand interpretative frameworks and propose analytical architectures susceptible to future
empirical operationalization (Jaakkola, 2020).
In this sense, the manuscript is not situated in the field of philosophical speculation, but in that
of the systematic construction of theory, understood as a process of conceptual
Prisma ODS Revista Científica Multidisciplinar
Volumen 5, Número 1 - Año 2026
Página | 434
problematization, critical integration, and structured formulation of explanatory categories
(Cornelissen, 2017; Whetten, 1989).
Illustrative Analytical Explanation of the Four-Dimensional Model
To clarify the scope of this proposed conceptual-analytical model, an illustrative vignette is
incorporated that contrasts two spatial configurations widely disseminated in contemporary
organizational contexts: offices in open spaces and spaces structured through cubicles. This
comparison is not empirical in nature, nor does it intend to establish deterministic causal
relationships; Its purpose is to demonstrate the analytical applicability of the model in plausible
organizational situations, preserving its conceptual nature.
Spatial configuration
In an open-plan office or open spaces, the architectural layout eliminates internal barriers and
favors transversal visibility between the members of the organization. This configuration tends
to promote accessibility, fluid circulation, and spontaneous interaction. In contrast, cubicle-
based design introduces semi-private physical boundaries that segment space into individual
functional units, structuring work into relatively autonomous modules.
From the relational perspective of space —inspired by the overcoming of the absolute
conception of space described by Einstein and Infeld (2005)— these configurations are not
mere technical arrangements, but structures that predispose specific patterns of interaction and
organizational coordination.
Symbolic spatiality
The open floor plan can symbolize horizontality, transparency and collaboration, values
associated with participatory organizational cultures. However, it can also represent constant
exposure and implicit surveillance. In contrast, cubicles can communicate individual autonomy
and concentration but also suggest fragmentation or hierarchization.
This dimension confirms that space acts as a carrier of organizational meanings and participates
in cultural construction (Pérez Mayo & Vallejo-Trujillo, 2018). Spatiality, therefore, not only
organizes bodies, but also symbols.
Relational dynamics
Prisma ODS Revista Científica Multidisciplinar
Volumen 5, Número 1 - Año 2026
Página | 435
In open environments, interaction tends to be more frequent and less formalized, facilitating
rapid exchanges and cross-cutting cooperation. However, permanent proximity can lead to
interpersonal tensions or distractions.
In spaces segmented by cubicles, physical borders regulate social proximity. This can
strengthen focus and privacy but reduce spontaneous interaction.
From the perspective of organizational complexity (Guerrero Sánchez et al., 2021), these
spatial configurations interact with structural and cultural variables, configuring relational
conditions without linearly determining the results.
Psychosocial effects
The open floor plan can be associated with perceptions of collective belonging and dynamism,
but also with overstimulation and social fatigue. Cubicles can promote a sense of control and
individual focus but generate isolation or symbolic disconnection.
Previous research has shown that organizational commitment and job satisfaction are linked to
structural and cultural conditions (Uscanga Arévalo et al., 2021). In this sense, the spatial
configuration operates as a transversal variable that influences the well-being and, by
extension, the sustainability of human resources.
Methodological value
The incorporation of this analytical analysis does not transform the conceptual nature of the
study, but rather provisionally operationalizes the theoretical framework. It allows us to
observe how the four dimensions —spatial configuration, symbolic spatiality, relational
dynamics and psychosocial effects— interact in an integrated way.
The comparison shows that the organizational space does not function as a neutral container,
but as a constitutive relational configuration of organizational life, in coherence with the
relational ontology defended in this work (Einstein & Infeld, 2005; Pérez Mayo & Vallejo-
Trujillo, 2018).
From the perspective of human resources sustainability, the coherence between spatial design,
organizational culture, and psychosocial needs is configured as a strategic element for
organizational well-being and continuity.
CONCLUSION
Prisma ODS Revista Científica Multidisciplinar
Volumen 5, Número 1 - Año 2026
Página | 436
This study demonstrates that organizational space cannot be reduced to a neutral or merely
physical container. Drawing on epistemological insights from the nomothetic sciences and
organizational theory, space emerges as a relational and constitutive dimension of
organizational life.
Consistent with transdisciplinary organizational theory (Pérez Mayo & Vallejo-Trujillo, 2018),
this article conceptualizes organizational space as a hybrid construct integrating physical,
social, symbolic, and cultural dimensions. Empirical and theoretical contributions from
organizational studies confirm that spatial configurations influence well-being, interaction, and
sustainability outcomes.
Understanding organizations as complex systems (Guerrero Sánchez et al., 2021) reinforces
the argument that spatiality actively participates in shaping organizational dynamics rather than
serving as a passive backdrop. From a human resource sustainability perspective,
organizational space becomes a central analytical category linking structure, culture, and
human development.
In conclusion, reconceptualizing organizational space from a transdisciplinary standpoint
contributes to more inclusive, ethical, and sustainable organizational designs, fully aligning
with the objectives of human resource sustainability research.
Future Research Directions
Organizational challenges are fundamentally cultural, emerging from shared symbolic and
practical worlds constructed through interaction. Spatiality plays a decisive role in shaping
these dynamics. As Maturana (1994) argued, human beings are constitutively social, and their
development occurs within specific spatial and cultural contexts.
Future research may operationalize the proposed framework through qualitative case studies,
spatial ethnographies, organizational discourse analysis, and comparative studies of workplace
design, integrating organizational space with human sustainability and well-being indicators.
This proposal is not merely rhetorical. From the perspective of theoretical construction in
organizational studies, a substantive contribution is not limited to the generation of empirical
data, but can consist of conceptual clarification, the systematic integration of existing
frameworks, and the formulation of new analytical categories with explanatory capacity
(Whetten, 1989; Jaakkola, 2020). In this sense, the article proposes structural contributions that
transcend discursive reiteration.
Prisma ODS Revista Científica Multidisciplinar
Volumen 5, Número 1 - Año 2026
Página | 437
First, the manuscript introduces a unified analytical category of organizational space,
overcoming fragmented approaches that treat space as an architectural, cultural, or symbolic
variable in isolation. The formalization of space as a constitutive dimension of the organization
expands its ontological status within organizational analysis, moving it from a contextual
condition to a structuring condition.
Second, an integrative model of four dimensions is proposed—spatial configuration, symbolic
spatiality, relational dynamics, and psychosocial effects—that articulates levels of analysis that
are frequently dissociated in the literature. This integration responds to the need, pointed out
by contemporary organizational theory, to build conceptual frameworks that connect
materiality, interaction, and meaning in coherent structures (Cornelissen, 2017; Makadok et
al., 2018). The model not only describes dimensions of space but also explains how its
articulation generates differential conditions for organizational dynamics.
Third, the article develops a relational ontology that links space and sustainability, establishing
an explicit bridge between spatiality and sustainability of human resources. While recent
literature on organizational sustainability and people management has emphasized well-being,
commitment, and ethical organizational design (Aust et al., 2020; Ehnert et al., 2016), the
constitutive role of space has remained sub-theorized. By integrating spatiality and
sustainability in the same conceptual architecture, the manuscript expands the explanatory
capacity of the field by showing how spatial configurations indirectly influence engagement,
psychosocial balance, and organizational continuity.
Finally, the study is based on a transdisciplinary epistemological foundation, articulating space
theory, organizational studies and sustainability under a relational logic. This approach
responds to recent calls that underscore the need for integrative frameworks capable of
transcending disciplinary fragmentations in organizational research (Jaakkola, 2020).
However, we recognize that, although the contribution is structurally substantive, its
positioning within the contemporary literature on human resource management and
sustainability could have been more precisely explained. A broadening of the dialogue with
peer-reviewed research from the last ten to fifteen years —particularly in human resource
sustainability, organizational structure, and organizational design— would strengthen the
visibility of the contribution and clarify its location in current debates in the field.
Prisma ODS Revista Científica Multidisciplinar
Volumen 5, Número 1 - Año 2026
Página | 438
In this sense, the contribution of the manuscript is not rhetorical, but conceptual and
architectural; however, its strategic insertion within the recent literature can and should be
strengthened to maximize its academic impact.
REFERENCES
Aust, I., Matthews, B., & Muller-Camen, M. (2020). Common good HRM: A paradigm shift
in sustainable HRM? Human Resource Management Review, 30(3), 100705.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100705
Cornelissen, J. P. (2017). Preserving theoretical divergence in management research: Why the
explanatory potential of qualitative research should be harnessed rather than
suppressed. Journal of Management Studies, 54(3), 368–383.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12210
Ehnert, I., Parsa, S., Roper, I., Wagner, M., & Muller-Camen, M. (2016). Reporting on
sustainability and HRM: A comparative study of sustainability reporting practices by
the world’s largest companies. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 27(1), 88–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1024157
Einstein, A. (1993). The theory of relativity. Altaya.
Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (2005). The evolution of physics (2nd ed.). Planeta.
Guerrero Sánchez, P., Guerrero Grajeda, J., & Pérez Mayo, A. R. (2021). Las organizaciones
como sistemas complejos. Política y Cultura, (56), 133–151.
https://doi.org/10.24275/NBYT2746
Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1–2),
18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
Jammer, M. (1954). Concepts of space. Harvard University Press.
Leibniz, G. W. (2002). Correspondence with Clarke. Alianza.
Makadok, R., Burton, R. M., & Barney, J. B. (2018). A practical guide for making theory
contributions in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 39(6), 1530–
1545. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2789
Maturana, H. (1994). The human sense. Editorial Dolmen.
Merlí, A. (2004). Sociology of work. Ariel.
Minkowski, H. (1908). Space and time.
Nolte, D. D. (2021). Hermann Minkowski’s spacetime: The theory that Einstein overlooked.
Galileo Unbound.
Prisma ODS Revista Científica Multidisciplinar
Volumen 5, Número 1 - Año 2026
Página | 439
Pérez Mayo, A. R., & Roque Nieto, N. (2025). Programa de la ciencia unificada, el caso de los
estudios organizacionales. Religación, 10(45), e2501410.
Pérez Mayo, A. R., & Vallejo-Trujillo, L. S. (2018). Organización y teoría organizacional: Una
visión transdisciplinaria. Bonilla Artigas.
Poincaré, H. (1892). Les méthodes nouvelles de la mécanique céleste. Gauthier-Villars.
Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Harvard
University Press.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). Shop management. Harper & Brothers.
Uscanga Arévalo, A. L., Pérez Mayo, A. R., & Roque Nieto, N. (2021). Organizational
commitment and labor satisfaction. International Journal of Social Science Studies,
9(2), 20–30.
Våland, M. S., & Georg, S. (2018). Organizational identity and the built environment: A review
and research agenda. Organization Studies, 39(12), 1691–1715.
Weinfurtner, T., & Seidl, D. (2019). Towards a spatial perspective on strategy as practice: A
review of spatial research in organization studies. Journal of Management Studies,
56(7), 1423–1453. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12437
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 490–495. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308371
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 490–495. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308371
Wright, A. L., Reay, T., & Zietsma, C. (2023). The role of space and place in organizational
and institutional change: A systematic review of the literature. Organization Studies,
44(2), 195–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406221100147
© Los autores. Este artículo se publica en Prisma ODS bajo la Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0
Internacional (CC BY 4.0). Esto permite el uso, distribución y reproducción en cualquier medio, incluidos fines
comerciales, siempre que se otorgue la atribución adecuada a los autores y a la fuente original.
: https://doi.org/10.65011/prismaods.v5.i1.176
Cómo citar este artículo (APA 7ª edición):
Pérez Mayo, A. R. ., & Roque Nieto, N. . (2026). From Absolute, Relative and Field Spaces to
Relational Space: Epistemological Foundations and Reconfiguration of Organizational
Space. Prisma ODS: Revista Multidisciplinaria Sobre Desarrollo Sostenible, 5(1), 424-
439. https://doi.org/10.65011/prismaods.v5.i1.176
