Leigh Star (1989) describes boundary objects as "objects that are both
plastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints of the several
partices 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.
Like a blackboard, a boundary object 'sits in the middle' of a group of
actors with divergent viewpoints."
Leigh Star and Griesemer (1989) describe boundary objects as objects which
"would maximize both the autonomy and communication between" the different
"worlds" of trappers, collectors, other non-scientists, and scientists
engaged in building a natural history museum. "Such economies maximized
the autonomy of work considerations in intersecting worlds while ensuring
'trade' across world boundaries......"
"In natural history work, boundary objects are produced when sponsors,
theorists and amateurs collaborate to produce representations of nature.
Among these objects are speciments, field notes, museums and maps of
particular territories. Their boundary nature is reflected by the fact
that they are simultaneously concrete and abstract, specific and general,
conventionalized and customized. They are often internally
heterogeneous."
While Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology is described as a boundary
object, produced by participants, many of whom share a common goal, the
museum is a tool in achieving the goal (object) of preserving California's
nature.
"So, in the case of the museum, the different worlds share goals of
conserving California and nature, and of making an orderly array out of
natural variety. These shared goals are lined up in such a way that
everybody has satisfying work to perform in each world."
The museum, then, is a complex artifact which coordinates the goals of
diverse participants, community members, or communities.It is a system of
boundary objects: repositories, ideal types (e.g., diagrams), maps,
standardized forms.
So, here is my question. What is the activity described here? Producing
a museum, or using a museum to produce rationalized nature and
the coordinated labor of diverse groups with diverse goals? When a
boundary object is being created it would seem to be the object of
activity. However, it is being created as an "open system" to mediate
the joint activity of diverse groups and when employed to that end
is the mediating artifact used toward a different object.
So, in Eugene's example of a doctor's visit is there an open system
plastic enough to adapt to local needs and contraints, but robust
enough to maintain common identity across sites? I think so. The
boundary object would consist of a mix of tools, context, and
participation fromes which would mediate healing, which I think
would be the object of the activity in which the participants
are jointly engaged, in spite of their respective other goals, which as
Yrjo has pointed out might be employement, keeping costs down, seeking
attention, getting a job-related physical.
I do have a related question. In the case of the doctor's visit
(or the museum) is the physical space, i.e., clinic, hospital, also
a mediateing artifact or tool? It would seem so, as would a
classroom be an artifact used in the activity of enculturating the
young.
Refs:
Star, S.L. (1989_ The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary
objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In Distributed
artificial intelligence, Vol 2. London: Pitman.
Star,S.L. & Griesemer, J.R. (1989) Institutional ecology: 'Translations'
and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of
Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science. 19, 387-420.
Honorine Nocon,
Dept. of Communication/LCHC
UCSD