Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 307–339

Boundary Negotiating Artifacts: Unbinding the Routine of Boundary Objects and Embracing Chaos in Collaborative Work

Article

Abstract

Empirical studies of material artifacts in practice continue to be a rich source of theoretical concepts for CSCW. This paper explores the foundational concept of boundary objects and questions the conception that all objects that move between communities of practice are boundary objects. This research presents the results of a year-long ethnographic study of collaborative work, specifically the multidisciplinary collaborative design of a museum exhibition. I suggest that artifacts can serve to establish and destabilize protocols themselves and that artifacts can be used to push boundaries rather than merely sailing across them. Artifacts used for collaboration do not necessarily exist within a web of standardized processes and disorderly processes should not be treated as “special cases”.

Keywords

articulation work artifacts artefacts boundary negotiating artifacts boundary objects collaborative work communities of practice Computer Supported Cooperative Work design ethnography museums theory 

References

  1. Albrechtsen H., Jacob E.K. (1998). The Dynamics of Classification Systems as Boundary Objects for Cooperation in the Electronic Library. Library Trends 47(2): 293–312Google Scholar
  2. Bechky B.A. (1999). Crossing Occupational Boundaries: Communication and Learning On a Production Floor. Industrial Engineering. Stanford University, Palo Alto, p 114Google Scholar
  3. Bertelsen, O.W. and S. Bødker (2002): Interaction Through Clusters of Artefacts. In 11th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (ECCE–11), Catania, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  4. Boujut J.-F., Blanco E. (2003). Intermediary Objects as a Means to Foster Co-operation in Engineering Design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing 12: 205–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowker G.C., Star S.L. (1999). Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  6. Brereton, M. and B. McGarry (2000): An Observational Study of How Objects Support Engineering Design Thinking and Communication: Implications for the Design of Tangible Media. CHIGoogle Scholar
  7. Bucciarelli L. (1994). Designing Engineers. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  8. Callon, M. (1985): Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. Power, Action and Belief, Sociological Review Monograph. Journal of Law, Vol. 32. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 196–230Google Scholar
  9. Diggins T., Tolmie P. (2003). The ‘Adequate’ Design of Ethnographic Outputs for Practice: Some Explorations of the Characteristics of Design Resources. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 7(July): 147–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eckert C. (2001). The Communication Bottleneck in Knitwear Design: Analysis and Computing Solutions. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing 10(1): 29–74CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Garrety K., Badham R. (2000). The Politics of Socio-technical Intervention: An Interactionist View. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 12(1): 103–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harper, R. (1998): Inside the IMF: An Ethnography of Documents, Technology and Organizational Action. Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Heath C., Luff P. (1996). Documents and Professional Practice: ‘Bad’ Organizational Reasons for ‘Good’ Clinical Records. ACM, CSCW, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Henderson K. (1999). On Line and On Paper: Visual Representations, Visual Culture, and Computer Graphics in Design Engineering. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  15. Hertzum M. (1999). Six Roles of Documents in Professionals’ Work. ECSCW, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  16. Karsten H., Lyytinen K., et al. (2001). Crossing Boundaries and Conscripting Participation: Representing and Integrating Knowledge in a Paper Machinery Project. European Journal of Information Systems 10(2): 89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krasner H., Curtis B., et al. (1987). Communication Breakdowns and Boundary Spanning Activities on Large Programming Projects. In: Olson G.M., Shepard S., Soloway E. (eds) Empirical Studies of Programmers: Second Workshop. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 47–64Google Scholar
  18. Larsson, A. (2003). Making Sense of Collaboration: The Challenge of Thinking Together in Global Design Teams, GROUP ’03. Sanibel Island, FL: ACMGoogle Scholar
  19. Latour B. (1987). Science in Action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  20. Law J. (1987) Technology, Closure and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case of the Portuguese Expansion. In: Bijker W., Pinch T., Hughes T.P. (eds) The Social Construction of Technological Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 111–134Google Scholar
  21. Lee, C. (2004): The Role of Boundary Negotiating Artifacts in the Collaborative Design of a Museum Exhibition. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Information Studies. Los Angeles, University of California, Los Angeles: 299Google Scholar
  22. Lutters, W.G. and M.S. Ackerman (2002): Achieving Safety: A Field Study of Boundary Objects in Aircraft Technical Support. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW 2002, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA: The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)Google Scholar
  23. Mambrey, P. and M. Robinson (1997): Understanding the Role of Documents in a Hierarchical Flow of Work. Group 97, Phoenix, AZ: ACMGoogle Scholar
  24. Pawlowski, S.D. and D. Robey et al. (2000): Supporting Shared Information Systems: Boundary Objects, Communities, and Brokering. Twenty First International Conference on Information Systems. Atlanta, GA: Association for Information SystemsGoogle Scholar
  25. Perry M., Sanderson D. (1998). Coordinating Joint Design Work: the Role of Communication and Artefacts. Design Studies 19(3): 273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pycock J., Bowers J. (1996). Getting Others to Get it Right: An Ethnography of Design Work in the Fashion Industry. CSCW, Boston MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  27. Schmidt K., Simone C. (1996). Coordination Mechanisms: Towards a Conceptual Foundation of CSCW Systems Design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing 5(2–3): 155–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schmidt K., Wagner I. (2002). Coordinative Artifacts in Architectural Practice. In: Blay-Fornarino M., Pinna-Dery A.M., Schmidt K., Wagner I. (eds) Cooperative Systems Design. A Challenge of the Mobility Age. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 257–274Google Scholar
  29. Schmidt K., Wagner I. (2005). Ordering Systems: Coordinative Practices and Artifacts in Architectural Design and Planning. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing 13: 349–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sonnenwald D.H. (1995). Contested Collaboration: A Descriptive Model of Intergroup Communication in Information System Design. Information Processing & Management 31(6): 859–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Star S.L. (1987–1989). The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving. In: Gasser L., Huhns M.N. (eds) Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Vol. II. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, pp 37–54Google Scholar
  32. Star S.L., Griesemer J.R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science 19: 387–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Strauss A. (1988). The Articulation of Project Work: An Organizational Process. The Sociological Quarterly 29(2): 163–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Subrahmanian E., Monarch I., et al. (2003) Boundary Objects and Prototypes at the Interfaces of Engineering Design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing 12: 185–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tang J.C. (1989). Toward an Understanding of the Use of Shared Workspaces by Design Teams. Department of Mechanical Engineering. Stanford University, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  36. Van House, N.A., M.H. Butler, et al. (1998): Cooperative Knowledge Work and Practices of Trust: Sharing Environmental Planning Data Sets. CSCW 98. Seattle, Washington: ACMGoogle Scholar
  37. Wenger E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Cambridge University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.California Institute for Telecommunications and Information TechnologyUniversity of California IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations