Design as an interactive boundary object

Abstract

What is it about the term ‘design’ that facilitates the emergence of interdisciplinary interactions even though the term may hold different meanings for those involved? To address this question, we analyzed the vocabularies, practices and orders of worth proposed by the members of an interdisciplinary Center for Design. Our analysis revealed similarities and differences in the meanings accorded by these individuals to the term design. The analysis also revealed an awareness on their part that their notions of design were incomplete, and that they had to rely on the inputs of others. Such reflexivity was an important factor in fostering meaningful interactions between these individuals. Based on these findings, we argue that design is an interactive boundary object, which enables different meaning structures to co-exist and co-inform actors from multiple disciplines and domains. Within such a view, the emergence of interactions occurs not despite but because of the diversity of views about the notion of design itself.

An Industry-Academia, Multidisciplinary and Expertise-Heterogeneous Design Approach: A Case Study on Designing for Mobility

“…In this context, elements such as the user survey, personas, and prototypes served as boundary crossing objects [25,26], enabling all team members to convene around shared knowledge within the scope of the project. This is in line with [28,29]. More interesting, though, was the role played by boundary crossing individuals [27] within the project.…”

“…Boundary objects need not be tangible and may include figures of speech or renaming a concrete phenomenon in a metaphorical manner, especially in the sharing of tacit knowledge and understanding between people [28]. More recently, it has been noted that a design approach itself can serve as an interactive boundary object, as it facilitates interactions across disciplines [29].…”

Digital twinning as an act of governance in the wind energy sector

“…Inspired by Miller and Wyborn (2020) we reflect on the "forms and arrangements of credibility, legitimacy, and accountability present and their implications for what knowledges and arrangements hold sway" (p. 92) in how digital twins are designed. Then, building on prior research about boundary work in design (Tharchen et al, 2020), we analyse the interaction between different domains of expertise in their collaboration on digital twins' design and between twinning and public policy and wind energy planning. Fig.…”

“…We analyse how the meaning of digital twins as boundary objects varies across different twinning actors and how these interpretations are a base for their boundary-work. Next to the interpretive flexibility of meaning that boundary objects have, we follow Leigh Star (Leigh Star, 2010) difference in meanings (see Tharchen et al, 2020). Following this line of work, we understand that boundary objects "form the boundaries between groups through flexibility and shared structure-they are the stuff of action".…”

“…Second, we focus on how boundaries are set around digital twins as a function of the interactions between experts, their expertise and their framing of how and why matters of concern are included in a twin (Henderson, 1991;Tharchen et al, 2020). These boundaries are informed by both an understanding of what counts as credible, reliable and relevant knowledge (Gieryn, 1995;Guston, 2001) and the ways and degree to which different kinds of data can be combined (Rundstrom, 1995;Howe, 1988).…”