ECSCW 2005 pp 387-406

Between Chaos and Routine: Boundary Negotiating Artifacts in Collaboration

  • Charlotte P. Lee

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 presents the results of a year-long ethnographic study of collaborative work. This research questions the assumption that artifacts exist necessarily within a web of standardized processes and that disorderly processes should be treated as “special cases”. 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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albrechtsen, H. and E. K. Jacob (1998). “The Dynamics of Classification Systems as Boundary Objects for Cooperation in the Electronic Library.” Library Trends 47(2): 293–312.Google Scholar
  2. Bechky, B. A. (1999). Crossing Occupational Boundaries: Communication and Learning On a Production Floor. Industrial Engineering. Palo Alto, Stanford University: 114.Google Scholar
  3. Boujut, J.-F. and E. Blanco (2003). “Intermediary Objects as a Means to Foster Co-operation in Engineering Design.” CSCW Journal 12: 205–219.Google Scholar
  4. Bowker, G. C. and S. L. Star (1999). Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. 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. CHI 2000.Google Scholar
  6. Bucciarelli, L. (1994). Designing Engineers. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Diggins, T. and P. Tolmie (2003). “The ‘Adequate’ Design of Ethnographic Outputs for Practice: Some Explorations of the Characteristics of Design Resources.” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 7 (July): 147–158.Google Scholar
  8. Eckert, C. (2001). “The Communication Bottleneck in Knitwear Design: Analysis and Computing Solutions.” CSCW Journal 10(1): 29–74.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Garrety, K. and R. Badham (2000). “The Politics of Socio-technical Intervention: An Interactionist View.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Mangement 12(1): 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harper, R. (1998). Inside the IMF: An Ethnography of Documents, Technology and Organizational Action, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Heath, C. and P. Luff (1996). Documents and Professional Practice: ‘Bad’ Organizational Reasons for ‘Good’ Clinical Records. CSCW, Boston, MA, ACM.Google Scholar
  12. Henderson, K. (1999). On Line and On Paper: Visual Representations, Visual Culture, and Computer Graphics in Design Engineering. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hertzum, M. (1999). Six Roles of Documents in Professionals’ Work. ECSCW, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
  14. Karsten, H., K. Lyytinen, et al. (2001). “Crossing Boundaries and Conscripting Participation: Representing and Integrating Knowledge in a Paper Machinery Project.” European Journal of Information Systems 10(2): 89–98.Google Scholar
  15. Krasner, H., B. Curtis, et al. (1987). Communication breakdowns and boundary spanning activities on large programming projects. Empirical Studies of Programmers: Second Workshop. G. M. Olson, S. Shepard and E. Soloway. Norwood, NJ, Ablex: 47–64.Google Scholar
  16. Larsson, A. (2003). Making Sense of Collaboration. GROUP’ 03, Sanibel Island, FL, ACM.Google Scholar
  17. 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: 299.Google Scholar
  18. Lutters, W. G. and M. S. Ackerman (2002). Achieving Safety: A Field Study of Boundary Objects in Aircraft Technical Support. CSCW 2002, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, ACM.Google Scholar
  19. Mambrey, P. and M. Robinson (1997). Understanding the Role of Documents in a Hierarchical Flow of Work. Group 97, Phoenix, AZ, ACM.Google Scholar
  20. Pawlowski, S. D., D. Robey, et al. (2000). Supporting Shared Information Systems: Boundary Objects, Communities, and Brokering. 21st International Conference on Information Systems, Atlanta, GA, Association for Information Systems.Google Scholar
  21. Perry, M. and D. Sanderson (1998). “Coordinating Joint Design Work: the Role of Communication and Artefacts.” Design Studies 19(3): 273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pycock, J. and J. Bowers (1996). Getting Others to Get it Right: An Ethnography of Design Work in the Fashion Industry. CSCW, Boston Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  23. Schmidt, K. and C. Simone (1996). “Coordination Mechanisms: Towards a Conceptual Foundation of CSCW Systems Design.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing 5(2–3): 155–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schmidt, K. and I. Wagner (2002). Coordinative Artifacts in Architectural Practice. Cooperative Systems Design. A Challenge of the Mobility Age. M. Blay-Fornarino et al. (eds.) Amsterdam, The Netherlands, IOS Press: 257–274.Google Scholar
  25. Schmidt, K. and I. Wagner (2005). “Ordering Systems: Coordinative Practices and Artifacts in Architectural Design and Planning.” CSCW Journal 13: 349–408.Google Scholar
  26. Star, S. L. (1987–1989). The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving. Distributed Artificial Intelligence. L. Gasser and M. N. Huhns. San Mateo, CA, Morgan Kaufmann. II: 37–54.Google Scholar
  27. Star, S. L. and J. R. Griesemer (1989). “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39.” Social Studies of Science 19: 387–420.Google Scholar
  28. Strauss, A. (1988). “The Articulation of Project Work: An Organizational Process.” The Sociological Quarterly 29(2): 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Subrahmanian, E., I. Monarch, et al. (2003). “Boundary Objects and Prototypes at the Interfaces of Engineering Design.” CSCW Journal 12: 185–203.Google Scholar
  30. Tang, J. C. (1989). Toward an Understanding of the Use of Shared Workspaces by Design Teams. Department of Mechanical Engineering. Stanford, CA, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  31. 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, ACM.Google Scholar
  32. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. New York, NY, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charlotte P. Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.California Institute for Telecommunications and Information TechnologyUSA University of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations