Engaging Boundary Objects in OMS and STS? Exploring the Subtleties of Layered Engagement

Abstract

This paper considers STS aspirations to engage with the field of Organization and Management Studies (OMS). It does so by investigating the employability of the concept of boundary object in OMS. Through an extensive literature review, the paper shows that rather than a simple engagement between STS and OMS the relation between the two consists of multi-layered (non-)engagements. The paper shows that the `successful' uptake of and the active engagement with the concept of boundary object in OMS cannot simply be regarded as a (successful) engagement of STS with OMS. The situated and contingent character of what counts as successful engagement explains the tensions that arise when a concept is taken up in a new field.

Keeping it real? Constituting partnering through boundary objects

“…Researchers from alternative traditions-associated, for example, with science and technology studies in general and actornetwork theory (ANT) in particular-would argue that this not only plays up the intrinsic properties of objects and understates their interpretative flexibility (Zeiss and Groenewegen, 2009), but also tends to ignore their mutability and active role in contributing as participants in streams of activity (Latour, 2005;Law and Singleton, 2005).…”

“…At the same time, however, it is important to recognize that this emphasis on the integrative potential of material and abstract objects derives from a tradition within management and organization studies that tends to presume that objects are essentially passive tools or mechanisms that can be used and manipulated in the interests of knowledge sharing and transformation (Zeiss and Groenewegen, 2009). Researchers from alternative traditions-associated, for example, with science and technology studies in general and actornetwork theory (ANT) in particular-would argue that this not only plays up the intrinsic properties of objects and understates their interpretative flexibility (Zeiss and Groenewegen, 2009), but also tends to ignore their mutability and active role in contributing as participants in streams of activity (Latour, 2005;Law and Singleton, 2005).…”

“…To do so, the paper draws upon the concept of boundary object (Star and Griesemer, 1989;Bowker and Star, 1999;Carlile, 2002Carlile, , 2004Bechky, 2003). Emanating originally from the field of science and technology studies (STS), the concept of boundary object has been appropriated and extensively applied in the organization and management studies field (OMS) (Zeiss and Groenewegen, 2009) to explore processes of integration and collaboration across what Carlile (2002Carlile ( , 2004 calls 'pragmatic boundaries'. Such boundaries mark out divergent interests across different domains of knowledge and practice and are particularly prominent in an inter-organizational field as differentiated as that found in construction (e.g.…”

Understanding the Role of Objects in Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration

“…We submit, however, that in organization science there has been a tendency to give prominence to one specific approach -the notion of "boundary object" (Carlile 2002(Carlile , 2004Leigh Star 2010;Levina and Vaast 2005;Star and Griesemer 1989). Indeed, this approach has sometimes been stretched so far from its original formulation that its utility has been questioned (Zeiss and Groenewegen 2009). In short, when all objects become boundary objects, the explanatory power of the theory is undermined.…”

'Blank figures' and the material organisation of knowledge: experiences of a 'project file'

“…Zeiss and Groenewegen (2009) explain how management and organisation researchers have been attracted by its seeming potential to explain communication and knowledge sharing (Carlile, 2002;Giroux, 2006;Locke and Lowe, 2007;Patnayakuni et al, 2007;Swan et al, 2007) and improve such practices -in effect engineering more effective boundary objects (Boland and Tenkash, 1995;Holford et al, 2008). An increasing number of studies have used this concept to examine the use of formal project management practices and knowledge (Cacciatori, 2008;Ivory et al, 2006;Koskinen and Mäkinen, 2009;Sapsed and Salter, 2004;Yakura, 2002).…”