2
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + − + − ''This theory is waiting to be summarized!'' − + − + − + − + − + − + + + + + + − == Diagram/schematic of theory ==+ − − == Originating author(s) == − − Line 54:
Line 54: − + − + − + Line 89:
Line 89: − + − + − +
Boundary object theory (view source)
Revision as of 09:16, 25 February 2019
, 09:16, 25 February 2019→Boundary object theory
{{Sponsor Thumbs}}
{{Sponsor Thumbs}}
== '''Boundary object theory''' ==
=='''Boundary object theory'''==
----
----Boundary objects theory comprises the standardization of interfaces between different social worlds - as described in the original paper by Star and Griesemer (19089). Due to the variety of actors - each with a different interest, commitment and perception of the world, it is given that social reality has different interpretations for each group of actors. The idea of boundary objects connects these actors - similar as language does - by providing objects that contain elements from each actor's "world". That does not mean that the understanding is the same - but the common interface for communication between actors is.
== Acronym ==
==Acronym==
== Alternate name(s)==
==Alternate name(s)==
== Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)==
==Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s)==
== Main independent construct(s)/factor(s) ==
==Main independent construct(s)/factor(s)==
== Concise description of theory ==
==Concise description of theory==
A boundary object is a concept in sociology to describe information used in different ways by different communities. They are plastic, interpreted differently across communities but with enough immutable content to maintain integrity. The ideas was introduced by Susan Leigh Star and James R. Griesemer in a 1989 publication:[1]
A boundary object is a concept in sociology to describe information used in different ways by different communities. They are plastic, interpreted differently across communities but with enough immutable content to maintain integrity. The ideas was introduced by Susan Leigh Star and James R. Griesemer in a 1989 publication:[1]
“ Boundary objects are objects which are both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites. They are weakly structured in common use, and become strongly structured in individual-site use. They may be abstract or concrete. They have different meanings in different social worlds but their structure is common enough to more than one world to make them recognizable means of translation. The creation and management of boundary objects is key in developing and maintaining coherence across intersecting social worlds.
“ Boundary objects are objects which are both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites. They are weakly structured in common use, and become strongly structured in individual-site use. They may be abstract or concrete. They have different meanings in different social worlds but their structure is common enough to more than one world to make them recognizable means of translation. The creation and management of boundary objects is key in developing and maintaining coherence across intersecting social worlds."
Within this publication, they illustrate the meaning and the aspects of boundary objects through their work with the California based Museum of Vertebrate Zoology in Berkeley. They explain the curation process of the museum, which involved also different actors- and how the resulting objects displayed in the museum are boundary objects: No matter if one was a research scientist, professor or amateur collector, they all considered it important to show - to name one example - the species of mammals and birds living in Californian nature. These elements were of interest to scientists, amateur collectors, non-scientists and the general public - despite their different backgrounds and interpretations of it. Boundary objects theory does not state that the perception of these objects is standardized or the same. It aims to highlight the meaning of standardized interfaces to convey information, despite its varying interpretation.
==Diagram/schematic of theory==
<br />
==Originating author(s)==
Susan Leigh Star and James R. Griesemer
==Seminal articles==
== Seminal articles ==
Boland, R.J., and Tenkasi, R.V. 1995. "Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of
Boland, R.J., and Tenkasi, R.V. 1995. "Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of
Knowing," Organization Science (6:4), pp. 350-372.
Knowing," Organization Science (6:4), pp. 350-372.
(45:5), pp. 956-970.
(45:5), pp. 956-970.
== Originating area ==
==Originating area==
Sociology
Sociology
== Level of analysis ==
==Level of analysis==
Group, Firm
Group, Firm
== IS articles that use the theory ==
==IS articles that use the theory==
Doolin, B., and McLeod, L. 2012. "Sociomateriality and boundary objects in information systems development," European Journal of Information Systems (21:5), pp. 570-586.
Doolin, B., and McLeod, L. 2012. "Sociomateriality and boundary objects in information systems development," European Journal of Information Systems (21:5), pp. 570-586.
Winter, S.J., and Butler, B.S. 2011. "Creating bigger problems: grand challenges as boundary objects and the legitimacy of the information systems field," Journal of Information Technology (26:2), pp. 99-108.
Winter, S.J., and Butler, B.S. 2011. "Creating bigger problems: grand challenges as boundary objects and the legitimacy of the information systems field," Journal of Information Technology (26:2), pp. 99-108.
== Links from this theory to other theories ==
==Links from this theory to other theories==
== External links ==
==External links==
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_object
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_object
== Original Contributor(s) ==
==Original Contributor(s)==
<br>
<br>