No, I don't object to boundaries if drawing them is necessary to
understanding. What puzzles me is the seemingly multiple uses of 'object'
here. As I read Eugenes description that a boundary object (in the first
sense) can include a person, I think of a material or corporeal entity as
described in La Red Magica project and understand Mike's questions for
clarification w.r.t. artifacts and mediation.
But then, THEN, it appears, perhaps, as if boundary objects (in the second
sense) could be those objects (in the subject-artifact-object triangle that
bridge, if you will, between activity systems i.e.
subject-aftifact-objECT-ARTIFACT-SUBJECT, especially if negotiation, as
occuring between subjects(agents) of two otherwise somewhat distinct
activity systems, for example classroom and not-classroom ( i.e. classroom
and home), forming a third, temporary, activity system with the boundary
"object" of negotiation.
Temporary activity seems to occur as other well developed activity systems
come together, temporarily, with shared object, artifacts, and maybe even
subjects, if, as in an extension of Eugene's case, the implications of a
test for a child's future (who is a boundary object in the first sense, and
may be present as a shared subject) are being negotiated between parents
and teacher. The boundary object in the second sense, being temporary, is
the object of the temporary subject-artifact-object activity that links
home and school activity systems. The interesting thing here is that the
object of this type of temporary activity may not be well developed,
leading to difficulty in the performance of the activity, such as failure
to negotiate. And this is in contrast to the type of transient activity
such as collective hunting for food, that although it is fleeting, is well
formed through recursive shared experience, and may well lead to successful
performance.
But, thinking that way, boundary objects (in the first sense), that may be
people, might be better termed "boundary subjects". But I don't know
enough theory to be embarrased by making this claim. Heh.
Just some half-saut=E9ed thoughts, seeking some clarification. It seems tha=
t
an important goal of developing theory IS to afford speaking in general
terms, although it may require effort. So it is not easy, but why else
would we be paid all this money? I think that developing general terms
certainly cannot be easier if we do not try to tease out some more shared
and more precise understandings.
Bill Barowy, Associate Professor
Technology in Education
Lesley College, 31 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html
_______________________
"One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself
and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
[Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]