This article examines the creation and stabilization of early-stage boundary objects by voluntary teams spanning divergent professional and scientific fields. Cross-disciplinary collaborators can share similar goals, yet nonetheless face frictions from differences in professional expertise, practices, and technical systems. Yet if boundary objects help to span disciplinary divides, the same challenges are likely to hinder initial boundary object development. Comparative ethnography of three projects adapting Grid computing technology to fields of science highlights challenges for boundary object creation, including a “mind-set shift” before the technology could stabilize. Enriching our knowledge of boundary object beginnings, we find successful stabilization requires both appropriate localization and further resources, which enable the simultaneously global–local nature of boundary objects. This essential feature is understudied in management research. Developing the boundary object concept on its own terms enhances empirical and theoretical application, particularly when researchers prefer one main theory of objects, rather than a “pluralist” approach.
AbbottA. D. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
2.
AbbottA. D. (2001). Chaos of disciplines. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
3.
AtkinsD. E.DroegemeierK. K.FeldmanS. I.Garcia-MolinaH.KleinM. L.MesserschmittD. G.. . . WrightM. H. (2003). Revolutionizing science and engineering through cyberinfrastructure: Report of the National Science Foundation Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
4.
BechkyB. A. (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science, 14, 312-330.
5.
BowkerG. C.StarS. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge: MIT Press.
6.
BowkerG. C.TimmermansS.ClarkeA. E.BalkaE. (Eds.). (2015). Boundary objects and beyond: Working with Leigh Star. Cambridge: MIT Press.
7.
CallonM. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In LawJ. (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge (pp. 196-233). London, England: Routledge.
8.
CarlileP. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13, 442-455.
9.
CarlileP. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15, 555-568.
10.
CetinaK. K. (1997). Sociality with objects: Social relations in post-social knowledge societies. Theory, Culture & Society, 14(4), 1-30.
11.
CetinaK. K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12.
CzarniawskaB. (2004). On time, space, and action nets. Organization, 11, 773-791.
13.
CzarniawskaB. (2007). Shadowing: And other techniques for doing fieldwork in modern societies. Malmö, Sweden: Copenhagen Business School Press.
Dominguez RubioF.SilvaE. B. (2013). Materials in the field: Object-trajectories and object-positions in the field of contemporary art. Cultural Sociology, 7, 161-178.
16.
EwensteinB.WhyteJ. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as “epistemic objects.” Organization Studies, 30, 7-30.
17.
GalisonP. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
18.
GriesemerJ. R. (2015). Sharing spaces, crossing boundaries. In BowkerG. C.TimmermansS.ClarkeA. E.BalkaE. (Eds.), Boundary objects and beyond: Working with Leigh Star (pp. 201-218). Cambridge: MIT Press.
19.
KelloggK. C.OrlikowskiW. J.YatesJ. (2006). Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organization Science, 17, 22-44.
20.
LatourB. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
LatourB.WoolgarS. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1979)
22.
LevinaN.VaastE. (2005). The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 29, 335-363.
23.
LindbergK.WalterL. (2013). Objects-in-use and organizing in action nets: A case of an infusion pump. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22, 212-227.
McGivernG.DopsonS. (2010). Inter-epistemic power and transforming knowledge objects in a biomedical network. Organization Studies, 31, 1667-1686.
26.
NicoliniD.MengisJ.SwanJ. (2012). Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organization Science, 23, 612-629.
27.
PowerM. (2015). How accounting begins: Object formation and the accretion of infrastructure. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 47, 43-55.
28.
ScarbroughH.PanourgiasN. S.NandhakumarJ. (2015). Developing a relational view of the organizing role of objects: A study of the innovation process in computer games. Organization Studies, 36, 197-220.
29.
StarS. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35, 601-617.
30.
StarS. L. (2015). The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In BowkerG. C.TimmermansS.ClarkeA. E.BalkaE. (Eds.), Boundary objects and beyond: Working with Leigh Star (pp. 243-259). Cambridge: MIT Press.(Original work published 1989)
31.
StarS. L.GriesemerJ. 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.
32.
StarS. L.RuhlederK. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7, 111-134.
