Understanding the Role of Objects in Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration

TLDR: A case is made for the use of multiple theoretical perspectives—theory on boundary objects, epistemic objects, cultural historical activity theory, and objects as infrastructure—to understand the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration and develops a novel analytical framework that organizes objects according to the active work they perform.

Abstract: In this paper we make a case for the use of multiple theoretical perspectives—theory on boundary objects, epistemic objects, cultural historical activity theory, and objects as infrastructure—to understand the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. A pluralist approach highlights that objects perform at least three types of work in this context: they motivate collaboration, they allow participants to work across different types of boundaries, and they constitute the fundamental infrastructure of the activity. Building on the results of an empirical study, we illustrate the insights that each theoretical lens affords into practices of collaboration and develop a novel analytical framework that organizes objects according to the active work they perform. Our framework can help shed new light on the phenomenon, especially with regard to the shifting status of objects and sources of conflict (and change) in collaboration. After discussing these novel insights, we outline directions for future research stemming from a pluralist approach. We conclude by noting the managerial implications of our findings.

Figures

Figure 2: Slide Projected During a Meeting Showing the Results of a Conducted Experiment

Table 1: Differences between the theoretical approaches for studying objects in cross disciplinary collaboration

Figure 1: Sensor Specialist (on Left) Discussing With Bioengineer (on Right) Over the Sensors (Disposed on Table)

Table 2: The role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration

Full text

http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/
Original citation:
Warwick Business School (Including: Nicolini, Davide, Mengis, Jeanne and Swan,
Jacky). (2012) Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration.
Organization Science, Volume 23 . pp. 612-629. ISSN 1047-7039
Permanent WRAP url:
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/57858
Copyright and reuse:
The Warwick Research Archive Portal (WRAP) makes this work of researchers of the
University of Warwick available open access under the following conditions. Copyright ©
and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual
author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable the
material made available in WRAP has been checked for eligibility before being made
available.
Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-
profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and
full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original
metadata page and the content is not changed in any way.
Publisher’s statement:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0664
A note on versions:
The version presented here may differ from the published version or, version of record, if
you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see
the ‘permanent WRAP url’ above for details on accessing the published version and note
that access may require a subscription.
For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: publications@warwick.ac.uk

- 1 -
Understanding the Role of Objects in Cross-
Disciplinary Collaboration
Davide Nicolini
IKON
Warwick Business School
University of Warwick,
Coventry CV4 7AL
United Kingdom
Jeanne Mengis
University of Lugano,
6900 Lugano, Switzerland
& IKON
Warwick Business School
University of Warwick,
Coventry CV4 7AL
United Kingdom
Jacky Swan
IKON
Warwick Business School
University of Warwick,
Coventry CV4 7AL
United Kingdom
Published in Organization Science 23 (2012): 612-629.
Permalink: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0664

- 2 -
ABSTRACT
In this paper we make a case for the use of multiple theoretical perspectives – theory on boundary
objects, epistemic objects, cultural historical activity theory and objects as infrastructure - to
understand the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. A pluralist approach highlights
that objects perform at least three types of work in this context: they motivate collaboration; they
allow participants to work across different types of boundaries; and they constitute the
fundamental infrastructure of the activity. Building on the results of an empirical study we
illustrate the insights that each theoretical lens affords into practices of collaboration and develop
a novel analytical framework that organizes objects according to the active work they perform.
Our framework can help shed new light on the phenomenon, especially with regards the shifting
status of objects and sources of conflict (and change) in collaboration. After discussing these
novel insights, we outline directions for future research stemming from a pluralist approach. We
conclude by noting the managerial implications of our findings

- 3 -
INTRODUCTION
One of the most notable characteristics of post industrial society is that work is increasingly
accomplished through collaboration amongst interdependent groups of disciplinary specialists
(Bechky 2006; Clegg et al. 2002; Lawler et al. 1992). A mounting number of social theorists
have argued, moreover, that a characteristic feature of modern sociality is that it is
increasingly mediated by objects and material artifacts (Knorr Cetina 1997). In this paper we
build upon previous research on the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration by
making a case for the use of multiple theoretical perspectives. Such a pluralist approach
highlights that objects can perform at least three types of work to support cross-disciplinary
collaboration: they provide the motives and drive for collaboration to emerge; they allow
participants to work across different types of boundaries; and they constitute the fundamental
infrastructure of the activity.
Our contribution is threefold. First, we develop a novel analytical framework that
organizes objects according to the roles they play in collaboration and the theoretical lens
taken. Second, we argue that examining the role of objects through different theoretical
lenses allows us to see that the role and function of particular objects can change during the
course of collaboration. The same object can thus take center stage or shift into the
background at different times. The key finding here is that the type work objects perform in
conditions of collaboration derive not only from their inherent nature but also from the nature
and unfolding of the activity itself. Third, we argue that a pluralist perspective allows us to
better understand sources of conflict and potential breakdown in collaboration. Here we
observe that a particular object can assume a different type of role for the different actors
engaged in collaboration at any moment in time - an object being motivational for some
whilst, at the same time, being background by others, for example. This can be an important

- 4 -
source of conflict in collaborative work – one not recognized previously - that can impede (or
drive) further collaboration.
We illustrate our arguments by drawing from a longitudinal study of the day-to-day
practices of collaboration amongst scientists engaged in a cross-disciplinary project in the
domain of biomedical engineering. Thus we follow the advice of authors such as Orlikowski
(2002) who suggest that the work performed by objects becomes apparent only when we
focus on how experts from various disciplines collaborate in practice, starting from the
premise that cross-disciplinary collaboration is a social accomplishment. While we do not
subscribe to the idea that objects alone can explain cross-disciplinary working, recent work
does suggest that objects perform an active role that needs to be unpacked and better
understood (Carlile 2004; Okhuysen and Bechky 2009; Orlikowski 2007).
We stand, of course, in a long line of authors who addressed these issues (see Orlikowski
2010; Rafaeli and Pratt 2006 for a discussion). In organization science, interest in objects and
artifacts has gone hand in hand with the development of so-called ‘practice-based’ studies
(Nicolini 2010; Orlikowski 2002; Orlikowski 2007; Osterlund and Carlile 2003) and the
parallel raising of emphasis on the social and material nature of organizational practices. As
Orlikowski (2007) puts it, the practice-based approach re-specifies organizing processes in
terms of practices and foregrounds that “materiality is integral to organizing, positing that the
social and the material are constitutively entangled in everyday life” (p. 1437). We submit,
however, that in organization science there has been a tendency to give prominence to one
specific approach - the notion of “boundary object” (Carlile 2002, 2004; Leigh Star 2010;
Levina and Vaast 2005; Star and Griesemer 1989). Indeed, this approach has sometimes been
stretched so far from its original formulation that its utility has been questioned (Zeiss and
Groenewegen 2009). In short, when all objects become boundary objects, the explanatory
power of the theory is undermined.

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What contributions have the authors mentioned in the paper "Understanding the role of objects in cross- disciplinary collaboration" ?

Copyright and reuse: The Warwick Research Archive Portal ( WRAP ) makes this work of researchers of the University of Warwick available open access under the following conditions. Copyright © and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author ( s ) and/or other copyright owners. 

Q2. What future works have the authors mentioned in the paper "Understanding the role of objects in cross- disciplinary collaboration" ?

A fruitful avenue for further research would be to build on the framework developed here to trace and explain systematically how objects transition in terms of their role, and the direct ( or indirect ) impact that this has on collaboration. Their analytical framework suggests that objects can change status within the same project and/or over longer time spans and, whilst the authors have hinted at why transitions happen, this is a subject for more research. A further question to be asked, then, is “ what is the meaning of this object and for whom ? ” - 42 - the authors would like to conclude by noting some implications for the management of cross- disciplinary collaboration. Three questions can be asked in this regard: first, whether an appropriate range of objects are in place ; second, whether the right objects are used at the right time ; third whether people attribute different roles to the objects in question. 

Q3. What was the long term goal of the project?

The long term expectation was to develop a system capable of generating reproducible, well-characterized, regenerated “designer” tissues and organs that would meet strict regulatory criteria for clinical applications. 

Q4. What was the role of the epistemic object in the research?

As Knorr-Cetina observed, emotional investment towards the epistemic object was notlimited to individuals but also operated as the engine of solidarity among groups of scientists from different disciplines. 

Q5. What was the key characteristic of the project?

The crucial defining characteristic was that, instead of being (only) forums in which people reported progress, showed off results, and fought for resources, they were sites where actual cross-disciplinary work was accomplished. 

Q6. What is the role of boundary objects in the bioreactor project?

It functioned as a boundary- 15 -object that coordinated the work across the multidisciplinary team often without making it necessary that the various sub-teams learn much from each other. 

Q7. What are the three questions that can be asked in this regard?

Three questions can be asked in this regard: first, whether an appropriate range of objects are in place; second, whether the right objects are used at the right time; third whether people attribute different roles to the objects in question. 

Q8. What is the argument for a limiting view of the concept of boundary objects?

-The authors argue that stretching the idea of boundary object to the point where it tries to explaineverything (therefore explaining nothing) is, in fact, unnecessary because other complementary theories exist that can provide persuasive accounts of some of the phenomena under discussion. 

Q9. What is the ensuing activity aimed at interpreting the meaning of the weird trend?

The ensuing activity aimed at interpreting the meaning of the “weird trend” is conducted with people standing in turn and getting close to the screen. 

Q10. What are the boundary objects used in the bioreactor project?

Boundary objects within the bioreactor project included the joint papers, shared analytical methods (i.e. DOE method), representations of results of the experiments (e.g. in PowerPoint slides) and the bioreactor itself, with its constituent elements (i.e. sensors, electronic board, connectors, computer). 

Q11. What is the third way of explaining cross-disciplinary collaboration through objects?

25 -A third way of explaining cross-disciplinary collaboration through objects is offered by Cultural Historical Activity Theory, a tradition stemming from the work of Vygotsky and Leont’ev (Engeström 1987; Kaptelinin and Nardi 2006; Leont’ev 1978). 

Q12. What is the main reason why many initiatives to promote knowledge and practice sharing fail?

in fact, many initiatives to promote knowledge and best practice sharing in organizations falter because the proponents fail to realize that, while at the outset the initiative itself operates as a primary object (participants take sharing itself as the object of the activity), over the course of time this is likely to change. 

Q13. What are the two critical factors that may make a successful crossdisciplinary endeavor?

Probing the different understandings and managing the tensions and conflicts that may emerge from differences in the status attributed to objects by collaborating partners are two critical factors that may make the difference between a successful and unsuccessful crossdisciplinary endeavor.