Researching ‘messy objects’: how can boundary objects strengthen the analytical pursuit of an actor-network theory study?

ABSTRACT This paper offers a detailed consideration of how the theoretical scope of the boundary object concept fits within an actor-network theory (ANT) sensibility when researching ‘messy objects’. Messy objects are artefacts whose relational effects are inherently slippery and complex. As the aim of ANT is to show how non-human and human actors are co-constitutive in performing social activity, the uptake of boundary objects in ANT studies may appear to be an expedient analytical endeavour. However, scholars have raised concerns that the boundary object concept has lost some of its original analytical bearing, and that it is theoretically incompatible with ANT. This paper argues that a more careful reading of boundary objects’ conceptual origins can provide useful insights for an ANT study. To illustrate this argument, findings are presented from an ethnographic study of engineers’ knowledge practices in an emerging industry. Specifically, it shows that when a messy object – a signature on a contract – is foregrounded as a boundary object, particular knowledge practices are made visible. However, due to the complexity and messiness of the signature’s performance, this paper contends that a pluralist theoretical approach to analysing messy objects may be more helpful to address issues of professional practice and knowledge.

[1]  JoAnne Yates,et al.  Life in the Trading Zone: Structuring Coordination Across Boundaries in Postbureaucratic Organizations , 2006, Organ. Sci..

[2]  B. Latour Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern , 2004, Critical Inquiry.

[3]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory , 2011, Organ. Sci..

[4]  Karen Ruhleder,et al.  Steps Toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces , 1996, Inf. Syst. Res..

[5]  Eric Blanco,et al.  Intermediary Objects as a Means to Foster Co-operation in Engineering Design , 2003, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[6]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[7]  Vivien W. Chow,et al.  The translation of power: A study of boundary objects in public engagement processes , 2014 .

[8]  Wiebe E. Bijker,et al.  Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society , 1989 .

[9]  Elaine K. Yakura,et al.  Charting Time: Timelines as Temporal Boundary Objects , 2002 .

[10]  Mike Bresnen Keeping it real? Constituting partnering through boundary objects , 2010 .

[11]  James Trevelyan,et al.  Towards a Theoretical Framework for Engineering Practice , 2014 .

[12]  R. Edwards,et al.  Considering Materiality in Educational Policy: Messy Objects and Multiple Reals. , 2011 .

[13]  Dominique Vinck,et al.  Back to the notion of boundary object (2) , 2010 .

[14]  Bruno Latour,et al.  The Powers of Association , 1984 .

[15]  Nina Berman,et al.  Object Lessons , 2016 .

[16]  Erik Strauss,et al.  Enrolling managers to accept the business partner: the role of boundary objects , 2015 .

[17]  J. Law Actor-network theory and material semiotics , 2009 .

[18]  Wai Fong Chua,et al.  The role of actor-networks and boundary objects in management accounting change: a field study of an implementation of activity-based costing , 2001 .

[19]  S. L. Star,et al.  This is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept , 2010 .

[20]  Lucy Suchman,et al.  Affiliative Objects , 2005 .

[21]  James Trevelyan,et al.  Engineering Practice in a Global Context : Understanding the Technical and the Social , 2013 .

[22]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[23]  S. Gherardi,et al.  "I Sign, Therefore I am" (Un)stable Traces of Professional Practices , 2014 .

[24]  Gabrielle Durepos Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor‐Network‐Theory , 2008 .

[25]  Kathryn Henderson,et al.  On Line and On Paper: Visual Representations, Visual Culture, and Computer Graphics in Design Engineering , 1998 .

[26]  Jacky Swan,et al.  Understanding the Role of Objects in Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration , 2012, Organ. Sci..

[27]  John Law,et al.  Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity , 1992 .

[28]  Ontologies for Developing Things: Making Health Care Futures Through Technology , 2010 .

[29]  A. Bakker,et al.  Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects , 2011 .

[30]  Sven Modell,et al.  On the virtues and vices of combining theories: the case of institutional and actor-network theories in accounting research , 2017 .

[31]  Charlotte P. Lee,et al.  Boundary Negotiating Artifacts: Unbinding the Routine of Boundary Objects and Embracing Chaos in Collaborative Work , 2007, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[32]  J. Overhage,et al.  Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[33]  A. Mol The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice , 2003 .

[34]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[35]  Beth A. Bechky Object Lessons: Workplace Artifacts as Representations of Occupational Jurisdiction1 , 2003, American Journal of Sociology.

[36]  T. Fenwick Workplace 'learning' and adult education: Messy objects, blurry maps and making difference , 2010 .

[37]  M. Callon The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle , 1986 .

[38]  Lucy Suchman,et al.  Organizing Alignment: A Case of Bridge-Building , 2000 .

[39]  Ulrik Jørgensen,et al.  Engineering Professionalism: Engineering Practices in Work and Education , 2016 .

[40]  Kaj U. Koskinen,et al.  Role of boundary objects in negotiations of project contracts , 2009 .

[41]  P. Groenewegen,et al.  Engaging Boundary Objects in OMS and STS? Exploring the Subtleties of Layered Engagement , 2009 .

[42]  Susan V. Scott,et al.  10 Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization , 2008 .

[43]  P. Trompette,et al.  Revisiting the notion of Boundary Object , 2009 .

[44]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research , 2014 .

[45]  B. Fraenkel La signature : du signe à l'acte , 2008 .

[46]  A. Mol Mind your plate! The ontonorms of Dutch dieting , 2013 .

[47]  Terrie Lynn Thompson,et al.  Researching a Posthuman World , 2016 .

[48]  K. K. Cetina Sociality with Objects , 1997 .

[49]  E. Wenger Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[50]  Naomi J. Brookes,et al.  Who reads the project file? Exploring the power effects of knowledge tools in construction project management , 2010 .