Boundary object

Applications

This concept has since been widely cited and the concept of a boundary object has been adopted in computer science (particularly computer supported cooperative work), information science, and management, particularly when considering cross-disciplinary work and collaboration, either within one organization or with the boundary object helping to focus the efforts of multiple organizations. Geoffrey Bowker and Star developed the concept further in the book Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences.

Boundary objects are said to allow coordination without consensus as they can allow an actor's local understanding to be reframed in the context of a wider collective activity.{{cite journal | author-link=Etienne Wenger

Charlotte Lee has extended the concept of the boundary object to consider periods of unstandardized and destabilized organization where objects are transient and changing, which she coins as "boundary negotiating artifacts."{{cite journal

Alex Juhasz and Anne Balsamo evoke the idea of learning objects (drawn from contemporary learning theory) to develop the concept of "boundary objects that learn," or BOTLs. This understanding of boundary objects acknowledges their role in the meaning-making process and in communication across social groups. However, it also emphasizes the fact that human users of boundary objects, especially those with access to digital technologies, can modify those objects to meet their needs.

Political implications

Kimble, Grenier and Goglio-Primard (2010) criticise the notion of boundary objects that is usually found in the literature as being too mechanical and ignoring the effect of intergroup politics and local conditions. They argue that boundary objects need to be seen in context of the motivations of the people that choose the object as well as their communicative role.

Isto Huvila, using the example of archaeological reports, argues that the creation of boundary objects is always to some degree an expression of hegemony. As such, boundary objects cannot be viewed as politically neutral or necessarily consensual.{{cite journal |doi-access=free

References

References

1. Leigh Star, Susan. (2010-09-01). "This is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept". Science, Technology, & Human Values.
2. (1989). "Institutional Ecology, 'Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39". [[Social Studies of Science]].
3. Typically the concept is referenced to the ''Social Studies of Science'' publication; however, the authors themselves (endnote 15) reference the concept to Susan Leigh Star, '[The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving', in M. Hubs and L. Gasser (eds), ''Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence'' 3 (Menlo Park, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1989).
4. (2014). "Boundary objects in information science research. An approach for explicating connections between collections, cultures and communities". Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology.
5. (2011-07-05). "Understanding the Role of Objects in Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration". Organization Science.
6. [[Geoffrey C. Bowker. Bowker, G. C.]]; & [[Susan Star. Star, S. L.]] (1999). ''Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences'', Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. {{ISBN. 978-0-262-02461-7
7. (2018). "Boundary Objects and the Technical Culture Divide: Successful Practices for Voluntary Innovation Teams Crossing Scientific and Professional Fields". Journal of Management Inquiry.
8. (2012). "An Idea Whose Time is Here: FemTechNet – A Distributed Online Collaborative Course (DOCC)". Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology.
9. {{Cite Q. Q59579885