Boundary Object Theory

1. Boundary Object Theory Adam Worrall LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development Dr. Michelle Kazmer 4/22/10

2. Boundary Object Theory Background Theorists Intellectual Traditions

3. Theorists 1989 2010 • Susan LeighStar • Assistant Professor of information and computer science, UC-Irvine • Worked with Rob Kling and others on impact of tech/computing on society • Trained in sociology with Anselm Strauss • PhD in sociology, UC-San Francisco (1983) • James Griesemer • Assistant Professor of philosophy, UC-Davis • PhD in conceptual foundations of science, Univ. of Chicago (1983) LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

4. Theorists 1989 2010 • James Griesemer • Chair of philosophy, UC-Davis • Has not worked with Star or contributed further to boundary object theory LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

5. Theorists 1989 2010 • Susan Leigh Star • UC-Irvine, UC-San Diego, Univ. of Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign, Santa Clara Univ.,Univ. of Pittsburgh • Contributed to theory and research in • science and technology studies • social studies of science / scientific communities • computer-supported cooperative work • artificial intelligence • social informatics • library and information science • Classification / categorization / information organization • Information behavior • Passed on, March 2010 LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

6. Intellectual Traditions • Symbolic interactionism / “Chicago school” of sociology • Ecological approach • Strauss • Grounded theory • Social worlds (Strauss, 1978) • Sociology of scientific practice / science and technology studies • Latour, Callon, Law’s “interessement” • Other contributing fields • Distributed artificial intelligence (early on) • Library and information science (more recently) LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

7. Boundary Object Theory Concepts Social Worlds Translation Boundary Objects Coherence

8. Social Worlds (from Strauss, 1978) • Include (p. 122) • One or more “primary” activities • Locations “where activities occur” • Technology to carry out activities • Organizations “to further … activities” • In established social worlds • Vary dramatically in size, boundaries, visibility, structure, topics • Study not just discourse of social worlds, but also activities, memberships, sites, technologies, organizations • “Intersect … under a variety of conditions” (p. 122) LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

9. Translation • Interessement (Latour, Callon, Law) • Translating “concerns of the non-scientist into those of the scientist” (Star & Griesemer, 1989, p. 389) • Establishing of “gatekeepers” or “obligatory points of passage” (Law) (Star & Griesemer, 1989, p. 389) • Based on viewpoint of this one gatekeeper scientist • Translation • “The task of reconciling [the] meanings” of objects methods, and concepts across multiple social worlds (p. 389) • Ecological approach • Multiple gatekeepers, viewpoints, “passage points” (p. 390) LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

10. Boundary Objects • Cross the boundaries between multiple social worlds • Used within, adapted to many of them “simultaneously” (Star & Griesemer, 1989, p. 408) • “Adapt to local needs” within social world but “maintain a common identity across sites”(Star, 1990, p. 46) • May vary in permeability, fixedness • Can be abstract, concrete, both, or in-between LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

11. Types of Boundary Objects (Star & Griesemer, 1989) • Repositories • Libraries, museums, etc. • Ideal types • Species, atlases • “Abstracted from all domains” • Geographic spaces • California, Florida, FSU campus • Standardized forms • Fill-in forms • Within broad categories, subtle differences LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

12. Examples of Boundary Objects Trained environmental biologist Library • Library is a repository • Use of library will be quite different by each group • Social worlds different despite common interest • It acts as a boundary object between their social worlds Graduate student in civil engineering Freshmen majoring in biology LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

13. Examples of Boundary Objects • Church is most likely a geographic space Trained environmental biologist Graduate student in civil engineering Church • One of the freshmen and the graduate student go to the same church • It acts as a boundary object between their social worlds Freshmen majoring in biology LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

14. Examples of Boundary Objects • Interests likely different • Habitat • Digestive system • Design of culverts and passageways • Species of endangered frog acts as a boundary object between social worlds • An ideal type Trained environmental biologist Graduate student in civil engineering Freshmen majoring in biology Endangered frog LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

15. Coherence (Star & Griesemer, 1989) • The degree of consistency between different translations and social worlds • “An indeterminate number of coherent sets of translations” are possible (p. 390) • Boundary objects play a critical role “in developing and maintaining coherence” (p. 393) LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

16. Coherence • Convergence • More recent development (1999-2003) • How well “information artifacts … are fitted to” the communities of practice that create and work with them (Star, Bowker, and Neumann, 2003, p. 244) • Restatement of coherence • Starting with boundary objects themselves • Focus less on translation process, more on result • Uses communities of practice instead of social worlds • Has some issues (discussed later) (See also Bowker & Star, 1999, pp. 46-49) LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

17. Boundary Object Theory Propositions All relational Boundary Objects Across Social Worlds Role of Boundary Objects in Translation, Coherence

18. Boundary Objects Across Social Worlds (Star & Griesemer, 1989) • They “inhabit several intersecting social worlds … and satisfy the informational requirements of each of them” (p. 393) • They also “are weakly structured in common use, and become strongly structured in individual-site use” (p. 393) LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

19. Boundary Objects Across Social Worlds • Boundary objects are structurally weak enough to inhabit and be used across multiple social worlds, but become structurally strong when used within individual social worlds. If X is a boundary object, then X is structurally weak in common use across social worlds and is structurally strong when used by and in each of these worlds. LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

20. Boundary Objects Across Social Worlds • Successful boundary objects satisfy the informational requirements (needs) of each of the social worlds they are used within; more successful boundary objects should satisfy more requirements from more social worlds. The more informational requirements X satisfies, and the more social worlds these satisfied requirements are from, the more successful X is in its role as a boundary object. LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

21. Role of Boundary Objects in Translation, Coherence (Star & Griesemer, 1989) • Their structure “is common enough to more than one world to make them recognizable, a means of translation” (p. 393) • Their “creation and management … is a key process in developing and maintaining coherence across intersecting social worlds” (p. 393) • “The central cooperative task of social worlds which share the same space but different perspectives is the ‘translation’ of each others’ perspectives” (p. 412) LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

22. Role of Boundary Objects in Translation, Coherence (Star & Griesemer, 1989) • Such translations are usually “performed in order to craft [boundary] objects” (p. 412) • Mismatches between overlapping meanings and representations “become problems for negotiation,” requiring careful managing of boundary objects, their meanings and representations, and the interfaces they provide between social worlds (p. 412) LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

23. Role of Boundary Objects in Translation, Coherence • Boundary objects, which are recognizable across social worlds, should facilitate translation and support some level of coherence between these worlds. If an object is recognizable across one or more social worlds, and thus acts as a boundary object, then that object should facilitate translation and support coherence—to some degree—between those social worlds. LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

24. Role of Boundary Objects in Translation, Coherence • A successful translation and negotiation process is one that supports and maintains a high level of coherence between social worlds. The translation process is more likely to be successful if a high level of coherence is supported and maintained between social worlds, and vice versa. LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

25. Role of Boundary Objects in Translation, Coherence • A high level of coherence should result from carefully managing the creation, crafting, meaning, and representation of boundary objects and the interfaces they provide between and across social worlds. The more carefully the creation, crafting, meaning, and representation of boundary objects and the interfaces they provide between and across social worlds are managed, the higher the level of coherence will likely be. LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

26. Note on Convergence • Can substitute in Propositions 3-5 • Coherence and convergence • Social worlds and communities of practice LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

27. Boundary Object Theory Theory as a Whole Chain-link, concatenated (Meleis, 1991, p. 227) Explanatory (p. 229) Inductive, grounded Did draw some on deductive, constructive reasoning Macrotheory Grand theory (Glazier & Grover, 2002), but near middle-range due to “substantive focus” (Meleis, 1991, p. 228)

28. Boundary Object Theory Limitations Viewpoints Flexibility / Negotiation Trust Convergence

29. Viewpoints • May be “constrained by the availability of information and its associated story-telling perspective” (Fujimura, 1992, p. 172; see also Lee, 2007) • Fujimura contended the viewpoint / social world there was the most data about would be unavoidably central to any study • Need to include data on as many as possible • Can’t include all in one study (impossible) • Multiple studies; representative samples (where possible) LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

30. Flexibility • Fujimura (1992): too flexible • Need to standardize methods, meanings, practices more quickly, both locally and globally • Lee (2007): not flexible enough • More conflict around, chaotic negotiation of boundaries, meanings • “Boundary negotiating artifacts” (p. 318) that do not cross boundaries “with relative ease” (p. 325) • Agree more with Lee • New concept probably not necessary • Active, chaotic negotiation, flexibility important to consider LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

31. Trust • Van House (2003) – Calflora subset of UC-Berkeley Digital Library • Found social and information worlds well integrated, translated between • However, still barriers to sharing data • Potential misuse of data by others • Additional work needed to make data presentable, understandable, accountable for • Conflicts with those from other fields, worlds • Trust an issue that boundary object theory did not directly include LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

32. Convergence • Star, Bowker, and Neumann (2003) applied “information world” to result of convergence process • Concepts of social and information worlds share similarities • Introduces potential cyclical elements • However, their definition of information world different to Chatman’s • No shared activities, information behaviors, social norms / social types • Coherence more compatible with other theories, does not predict or require a cycle LIS 6278 Seminar in Theory Development

33. Questions, comments? Thank you!