>Eugene, thanks for your comment. The idea that the visit itself is a
>boundary object never occurred to me. Wouldn't that reduce the notion of
>boundary object to some sort of frame, or participation framework (a la
>Goffman)? What would be left of the 'objectness', in the sense of something
>toward which the actions are oriented and which motivates the activity?
This is an interesting question. I think all objects of activities that
people deal with have semiotic (i.e., "ideal" or meaning) aspects and
material one. Architecture design is an object. Doctor visit is an object.
Undergraduate class is an object. Each of them is counted, registered in
managerial books, and has a cost price tag. Each of them involves material
supplies, tools, participants, and values defining success.
I don't fully like Goffman's notion of frames exactly because it leaves
unanalyzed the material body of the object so nicely captured both by yours
and Leigh's notions. There is material body of doctor visit that involves
closed room, furniture, architecture, patient's body, doctor's dress,
medical instruments and tests, medical records, system of visit arrangement,
patient-doctor discourse, patient-staff discourse, initiating insurance
claims, and so forth. Each item on this list is a material "thing" than has
its own existence outside of participants' minds.
What do you think?
Eugene