Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Grand Concepts of Environmental Studies Boundary objects between disciplines and policymakers

The Grand Concepts of Environmental Studies Boundary objects between disciplines and policymakers Inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration is necessary in order to take on the environmental challenges facing humanity. Different disciplines, stakeholders, and policymakers need to work together to produce the knowledge necessary to create effective and just courses of action to counteract environmental problems. Recently, the notion of ‘boundary objects’ has been increasingly used within environmental studies to explain how some objects facilitate communication across the boundaries between different groups of actors. Due to their vague use in common contexts and specific use in each group, these objects let groups retain their own understanding while still communicating successfully with others. Novel concepts like ‘resilience’, ‘ecosystem services’, and ‘sustainability’ are due to their interpretive flexibility commonly described as boundary objects. However, in order to implement these concepts in concrete policy, some amount of standardization is needed. This presents a tension with the vagueness required for the facilitation of communication. This paper explicates whether and how novel concepts in environ- mental studies can be usefully understood as boundary objects. I review how boundary objects have been applied in the literature surrounding inter- and transdisciplinary collaborations, focusing especially on instances where concepts were considered to be boundary objects. I suggest that novel concepts in environmental studies can be understood as both ‘grand concepts’ in their most widespread use and as ‘hubs and spokes’ in local contexts. This allows for both vagueness at the macro level and standardization at the local level. I also explore how models, frameworks, and data have been successfully used as boundary objects. . . . . Keywords Boundary objects Interdisciplinarity Transdisciplinarity Resilience Ecosystem services Introduction Medicine 2004). Recently, much attention has been directed at the notion of ‘boundary objects’ as a theoretical perspective It has long been recognized that the challenges facing human- explaining the role of objects in inter- and transdisciplinary ity in regard to our environment transcend the boundaries of research (Levesque et al. 2019;Penningtonetal. 2016). traditional academic disciplines. Researchers need to reach Boundary objects are situated between social groups and are across those same boundaries in order to produce knowledge relevant to each group, and therefore enable communication, on how to face these environmental challenges. Inter- and mutual learning, and negotiation. They are especially relevant transdisciplinarity has therefore become central to the fields when research is co-produced with stakeholders and of environmental studies and sciences. However, these are policymakers (Bergmann and Jahn 2008; van Bruggen et al. notoriously difficult concepts to grasp, and there has been 2019; Hauck et al. 2014). Boundary objects are thus involved much discussion about what interdisciplinarity and in the production of interdisciplinary knowledge both between transdisciplinarity is and how to successfully conduct such academic disciplines and with actors outside of academia. research (Klein 2008, 2017; Sciences, National Academy of, Within environmental studies, a number of concepts have National Academy of Engineering, and and Institute of been either invented or revived in order to facilitate collabo- ration between disciplines and with stakeholders. Such con- cepts include the famous ‘resilience’, ‘ecosystem services’, * Jakob Lundgren and, of course, ‘sustainability’, as well as less widespread Jakob.Lundgren@gu.se concepts like ‘urban ecology’, ‘blue-green networks’,or ‘landscape quality’. These concepts are often described as Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden boundary objects due to their interpretive flexibility. 94 J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:93–100 However, for the most widespread ones, this status is contro- between scientists and trappers (who were amateur) by incor- versial (Ainscough et al. 2019;Brand andJax 2007). This is porating both theoretical and concrete data. It thus had mean- typically due to tensions between the concepts’ inherent ing for trappers as a way of labelling specimen, and for scien- vagueness and the need for standardization in policymaking. tists as a means of translating specimen into ecological data. Facilitating communication is weighed against concrete poli- However, the concept itself does not accurately describe either cy implementation. Is ‘boundary objects’ an appropriate way specimen or ecological data. Star and Griesemer label such of understanding these concepts, considering this tension? abstract descriptions ideal types.Theyalsoidentify The matter is complicated further by the fact that not only repositories and standardized forms as boundary objects. concepts but also frameworks, models, data, and physical ob- Carlile (2004) further develops the theoretical dimension of jects havebeenconsideredtobeboundaryobjects. boundary objects in his study of communication across de- The aim of this paper is to explicate in what ways novel partments in industrial product development. He identifies concepts, as well as other objects in environmental studies, three crucial roles that boundary objects play. Firstly, they can be understood as boundary objects. In order to do this, I constitute a shared syntax. A shared syntax allows actors to investigate how the concept of boundary objects has been express knowledge and concerns across the border between used in the literature surrounding inter- and transdisciplinary social worlds. Secondly, boundary objects bridge semantic projects. This analysis shows how ‘boundary objects’ can be boundaries by allowing actors to learn about the perspective applied in various situations stressing different aspects of the of the other. The object allows actors to specify details of their concept. I also suggest understanding conceptual boundary concerns and knowledge, so that the other side can gain a objects in environmental studies as ‘grand concepts’ and deeper understanding of them, as opposed to the mere syntac- ‘hub-and-spoke concepts’ depending on the scope in and pur- tic acknowledging of their existence. Finally, boundary ob- pose for which the concept is applied. jects overcome pragmatic boundaries by allowing for the transformation of knowledge. If a problem has occurred at an intersection of social worlds, individual actors need to be Background able to alter their understanding of the situation in order to come up with a solution that is acceptable for both. This can In their 1989 paper, Star and Griesemer coined the term be done by altering the contents (either practically or concep- ‘boundary object’ to describe “objects which both inhabit sev- tually) of a boundary object. Ideal types and objects with eral intersecting social worlds […] and satisfy the informa- coincident borders are the only types of boundary objects that tional requirements of each of them” (Star and Griesemer readily allow individuals to alter their contents. 1989:393). A boundary object must be meaningful to all rel- In her 2003 paper on the transformation of knowledge on a evant social worlds, although the meaning of that object will production floor, Bechky invokes the notion of ‘work context’ be somewhat different to every world it inhabits. to explain why some boundary objects are successful in one Nevertheless, there is sufficient overlap of meaning that the context, yet fail in another. According to her, a boundary ob- object is clearly identifiable as the same object by all relevant ject can only create common ground between two social social worlds. When these objects are employed in common, worlds if it is used in the day-to-day practice of both worlds. inter-world use, they have a weak structure, and when they are Thus, engineering drawings failed to convey engineers’ con- used within a single social world, they have a stronger struc- cerns to manufacturers because they did not reflect the phys- ture. The paradigm example of a boundary object is the state ical conception of the product from the daily work of the of California in the context of the establishment of the manufacturers (Bechky 2003). Berkeley Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. California was a In addition to theorizing about the internal properties of boundary object for a number of reasons. Firstly, there was boundary objects, there have also been discussions about the an overarching goal of preserving the Californian nature in limits of the concept. Lee (2007) argues that the term has most of the interacting social worlds. Secondly, while the geo- become a catch-all term for any (material) artefacts inhabiting graphical area of California constituted a common under- boundaries in collaborative projects. She notes that the con- standing among all social worlds, the maps utilized by actors cept was in its inception exclusively related to standardization from different worlds demonstrate how the significance of the and well-functioning routines, whereas later uses sees the con- elements of that area differed between them. The state of cept applied to more chaotic, non-routine projects. Lee instead California was described by Star and Griesemer as a boundary coins the term ‘boundary negotiating artefacts’ to describe object with coincident borders but different internal such artefacts as take part in the redrawing of boundaries configuration. and the redistribution of labour. These are not merely subject A second example representing a different kind of bound- ary object offered by Star and Griesemer is the notion of It was later stressed by Star (2010) that these four categories of boundary ‘species’. This concept served as a means of communicating objects were not meant to be exclusive, but few have added to that list. J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:93–100 95 to standards, and do not simply move passively across bound- The documents included articles, conference papers, book aries, but are actively involved in the negotiation of both. Lee chapters, and retractions. Publication years ranged from argues that there are instances where boundary negotiating 1995 to 2020 articles in press, although the majority were artefacts are mistakenly labelled as boundary objects, inadver- from 2014 and later. Out of the 247 documents, 57 were tently contributing to the dilution of that term. Pennington judged upon reading of abstracts as not relating to cross- (2010), on the other hand, recognizes the more narrow original disciplinarity or not actually applying the concept of boundary definition of boundary objects as pointed out by Lee but ar- objects. Of the remaining articles, 18 were inaccessible in such gues that the use of the concept has since evolved, and that any a way that no usable information could be extracted from boundary-crossing object could be referred to as a boundary them. From each of the resulting 172 articles, excerpts relating object. explicitly to boundary objects, along with one or two para- Star attempts to provide somewhat of an answer to the graphs of case description, were extracted. The excerpts relat- question “what is NOT a boundary object?” in her posthu- ing to boundary objects were found by using a word search for mous 2010 paper. She puts forward three aspects of boundary the term ‘boundary object’, and including the paragraphs (or a objects that need to be taken into consideration: (1) interpre- few sentences from the paragraphs) in which the term figured. tive flexibility, (2) material/organizational structure of differ- Case descriptions were generally extracted from the introduc- ent boundary objects, and (3) the dynamic of ill-structured use tory parts of articles, unless a separate section for the intro- at the common scale and well-structured use at the local scale. duction of cases was present. A boundary object need not be a physical object, or “thing”,it The collected material was coded according to a grounded is sufficient that the object is acted towards and with. theory framework (Charmaz 2014). Thus, categories were de- However, the usefulness of the concept of boundary objects rived from the material itself and were continuously re- is dependent on the scope and scale of the investigation that it evaluated in light of that material. Codes from the first round is part of. As for scale, boundary object is a particularly useful included different kinds of objects, as well as the various fields concept when studying an object at an organizational level. being described. As these codes were not used for any rigor- That is to say, even such a thing as a word can be a boundary ous quantitative analysis, I did not judge it useful to formalize object if it is central to some organized work effort, such as the them further. Having done a first round of coding, I performed interpretation of the Rosetta stone. Regarding scope, Star in- a close reading of articles according to codes, focusing in sists that the concept is at its most applicable when investigat- particular on instances where concepts were labelled as ing a clearly delineated enterprise. The American flag can be boundary objects. considered a boundary object in the context of its manufac- ture, marketing, and distribution, but for the analysis of the American flag as such other frameworks will prove more use- Variety ful (Star 2010). As noted by Lee (2007)and Star (2010), the concept of boundary objects has seen widespread and varied use across a multitude of disciplines. This variety of contexts has given Materials and methods rise to a variation in the way that the concept is used. In this section I explore some of the variation that can be seen in the The materials for this literature survey were collected by studied material. performing two searches in the database Scopus. The first was constructed to find articles that refer to boundary objects Variety of contexts and explicitly to either transdisciplinarity or interdisciplinari- ty. The second was constructed to find articles that refer to Most of the papers surveyed concern cross-disciplinary col- boundary objects and any form of cross-disciplinarity, exclud- laborations that incorporate one or more of five common ing articles from the first search. I conducted similar searches ‘themes’. Thesefivethemesare (environmental) sustainabil- in Web of Science, but found that the results were entirely ity, technology, education, art, and healthcare. The themes contained within those from Scopus, except those instances often overlap, such that some papers deal with technological where the terms had been indexed by the database itself, not education (Fominykh et al. 2016; Reddy et al. 2019), used by the authors. The searches returned a total of 247 healthcare education (Timmis and Williams 2017), or technol- documents, 119 from the first search and 128 from the second. ogy in art (Norman 2014). Not all papers touch on any of these five themes, but no other theme occurred more than once or Search string: TITLE-ABS-KEY(“boundary object” AND (interdisciplin* OR transdisciplin*)), conducted on 2019-07-16 3 4 Search string: TITLE-ABS-KEY(“boundary object” AND *disciplin* AND These do not represent disciplinary belonging. They characterize the pro- NOT (interdisciplin* OR transdisciplin*)), conducted on 2019-07-29 jects, not the participants or the authors. 96 J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:93–100 twice (except in cases where the same authors published mul- object is one of the concepts included in this framework. tiple articles based on the same case). Articles touching on Accordingly, the concept has been interrelated with a number sustainability concern descriptive or normative discussions of other terms dealing with boundary phenomena, some of of environmental issues or societal issues arise on the basis which were developed from the notion of boundary objects of these. Articles having technology as a theme concern the itself. These include ‘boundary work’, ‘boundary organiza- production, development, or implementation of some techno- tions’, ‘boundary negotiation’, and many others (Trompette logical novelty. Education involves either a case study of and Vinck 2009). some actual educational context or theoretical discussion This tendency of exploring and coining related concepts pertaining to education. Articles involving art describe pro- can also be observed in the articles surveyed. Some of the jects that were referred to as artistic or involving artefacts terms used include ‘research object’ (Bergmann and Jahn referred to as art. Healthcare involved both medical research 2008; Hermelingmeier and Nicholas 2017), ‘boundary de- and practice as well as discussions of healthcare policy. vice’ (MacGillivray and Franklin 2015), ‘fetish object’ Sustainability was the single most common theme, also being (Hirschhorn 2018), and ‘epistemic object’ (McGreavy et al. the one that most often appeared alone. 2013;Nicolini et al. 2012) among others. Here, the concept ‘boundary objects’ is used by researchers to attune to the par- ticularities of their situation of study. More than its ability to Variety of objects describe the phenomena at hand, the strength of the concept ‘boundary objects’ in these instances is its use in re-examining Throughout the material, I observed a number of categories of and developing theories and categories. This is true to the objects, some of which sometimes overlapped. These include concept’s origin in grounded theory, which is at its core about events, places, software, models or frameworks, concepts, theory-development (Charmaz 2014; Clarke and Star 2007). concrete objects, visualizations, information, standards, ele- ments of language, and activities. While it is possible to show that instances of each of these categories have at some Work-context and constructed objects point been described as boundary objects, it is not always clear in each individual case precisely what it is that is being de- As pointed out by Bechky (2003), failure of objects to func- scribed as the boundary object. In articles investigating theo- tion as boundary objects can (sometimes) be explained by retical frameworks, for instance, it is sometimes unclear their absence from the work context of collaborating partici- whether the boundary objects are the words used in the frame- pants. This insight was mirrored by many of the surveyed work, the concepts they represent, the framework itself, the articles. In particular, when information in the form of data practice of constructing the framework, or everything at once. or maps was recognized as boundary objects, the ability of all In articles dealing with sustainability, most objects were participants to utilize (and not only understand) that informa- either concepts or models/frameworks. Models and frame- tion was highlighted (Risner et al. 2019; Venable 2017). works consist of concepts in a particular interrelation, often However, in some instances, particularly involving ‘grand with an accompanying visualization, and are used in order to concepts’ (see below), boundary objects were not noted as represent ways of thinking about problems or phenomena. figuring in the day-to-day work of participants. Instead, these Some articles also viewed research data, catastrophic events, objects served a more over-arching function in facilitating or places as boundary objects (Lillo-Ortega et al. 2019; collaboration. Opdam et al. 2013; Venable 2017). Thus, within environmen- Of the articles focusing on work context, some employ the tal science, boundary objects are not usually material or con- notion of co-production to emphasize the mutual participation crete objects. of various groups in creating a boundary object (Levesque et al. 2019;Rouxet al. 2017). This illustrates a further aspect Conceptual variety of boundary objects common in some interdisciplinary con- texts. Here, artefacts are actively constructed specifically to Clarke and Star (2007) emphasize in their introduction to the function as boundary objects and are designed to exhibit the social worlds framework that its concepts are not to be seen as characteristics described in the theoretical literature. This is definitive, i.e., with rigid definitions, but rather as sensitizing: particularly common when the objects are models and frame- giving researchers an indication of where to look, rather than works (van Bruggen et al. 2019; Mattor et al. 2014). The necessary and sufficient criteria of application. Boundary notion of ‘negotiation’ figures strongly in these contexts, These categories are not meant to be theoretically meaningful in the way that and focus is on active exploration of differences in meaning those of Star and Griesemer (1989), Wenger (2008), or Carlile (2004)are. among participants. examples from each of the categories above could possibly be subsumed under The idea of constructing boundary objects is not present in any of these higher-level classifications. Simulations and data models were considered to be software in this analysis. the early theoretical explorations of the concept. There, J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:93–100 97 objects assumed the role of boundary objects as a conse- considered ‘living’, etc.). Of course, these thin definitions quence of the organizational properties of the collaboration need not to be explicit, but should always be possible to find. in which they figured and were identified as such only after From the collected materials, two archetypes of conceptual they had already assumed the role. The move towards actively boundary objects could be discerned. seeking boundary objects in order to facilitate collaboration was undertaken when the concept was imported into organi- & Grand Concepts are concepts that are policy-oriented, see zational studies (Zeiss and Groenewegen 2009). In environ- widespread use, are in tension with standardization, and mental studies, co-production of boundary objects is regularly maintain ambivalence. discussed as an effective means of incorporating stakeholders’ & Hub-and-Spoke Concepts are local to single contexts, are and policymakers’ perspectives into research. However, care objectives or approaches, and strive to stabilize the inter- must be taken that participation does not become token, but faces of exchange, while moving towards greater that stakeholders are empowered and their views accurately standardization. represented (Elzinga 2008). In the remainder of this section, I describe these two arche- types as they are characterized in the surveyed articles. Concepts as boundary objects Grand concepts In interdisciplinary collaborations, central concepts are often considered to be boundary objects. Although boundary ob- These are common in (though not exclusive to) environmental jects are more intuitively thought of as concrete things, they studies. Concepts such as ‘resilience’, ‘ecosystem services’, need not necessarily be so (Star 2010). In Star and Griesemer ‘stewardship’,and ‘sustainability’ are often discussed as 1989, the notion of species is considered to be a boundary boundary objects between science and policy. I choose to object of the ‘ideal type’ variety. If concepts are to function name them ‘grand concepts’ because of their connection to as boundary objects, they will need to exhibit the dynamics of the ‘grand challenges’ of society they are often employed in ill-structured use in the common context and well-structured describing. Central aspects of grand concepts are as follows: use in each social world. Thus, it is important that such a concept does not have a precise definition in its common 1. Widespread use: use. At the same time, however, the concept needs to be rec- “[T]he concept is used by various scientific disciplines ognized as being the same throughout all relevant social as an approach to analyze ecological as well as social- worlds. Thus, these concepts cannot be entirely without defi- ecological systems…” (Brand and Jax 2007:1). nition either. “[T]he popularity of ‘resilience’ has exploded in both I would like to posit the notion of ‘thin definitions’ to academic and policy discourse…” (Meerow et al. suggest an explanation of how concepts can be both vague 2016:39). and maintain a rigid identity. A thin definition (from Geertz “With this wide and diverse use across research, policy and Darnton (2017) distinction between thick and thin de- and practice…” (Peçanha Enqvist et al. 2018:18) scriptions) is a definition where social context is stripped 2. Orientation towards policy: away, and the culture-specific meaning of a thing is lost. “[T]he ES paradigm features prominently in policy, Star and Griesemer argue that the strength of the ideal type theoretical and activist discussions…” (Jadhav et al. as a boundary object resides in precisely this deletion of local 2017:2). contingencies (1989:410). Thickness and thinness are or “…promotes research efforts across disciplines and be- course relative notions: a (very) thin description of the sen- tween science and policy…” (Brand and Jax 2007:1) tence “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times” as 3. Tension with standardization: written on a page would consist of a description of the spatial “[T]o impose a universal definition can obstruct One relations of lines to each other, whereas a (very) thick descrip- Health’s function as a boundary object…” (van Herten tion would contain an account of both Dickensian writing and et al. 2019:27). Victorian England, and all intermediate levels of description “Standardization facilitates implementation, yet efforts would be either thick or thin depending on which they are to standardize both the concept and practice of the ES may compared to. If multiple social worlds can agree on a thin diminish its ability to function as a communication de- definition of a concept, then its identity can be maintained vice…” (Steger et al. 2018:154) without loss of context-specific meaning. For the concept of 4. Ambivalence: species, a thin definition like ‘sorts of living things’ leaves a “[T]he catchword sustainable development enables host of questions to be answered in each social world (e.g. different scientific disciplines or social groups to justify about what constitutes a ‘sort’, what things are to be their particular interest with respect to an accepted and 98 J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:93–100 ethically legitimated, societal goal […] It may thus even 2. Being either a goal or an approach: hide conflicts and power relations when different persons “Landscape quality is thereby both the objective and agree on the need for sustainability when in fact meaning the result of land use planning for water management” different things by it” (Brand and Jax 2007:9). (Wesselink 2009:409). “[T]here is a danger of overlooking the ways resilience “Although not planned to be such, the vague idea of discourses legitimize certain practices and nullify alterna- mapping, assessing, and valuing served as a boundary tives, thereby leading to undesirable outcomes and hin- object that proved capable of engaging different inter- dering transformational change” (Gillard 2016:16). ests.” (Hauck et al. 2014:382) 3. Stabilizing interfaces: Research involving these grand concepts is normally “The more promising approach is to establish ongoing intended to influence policy. Such research is usually not fo- cooperative structures […] aligned by and centered cused on exploring the concepts themselves—it is rather con- around shared research questions and tasks […] ducted under the umbrella of these concepts. For example, Establishing and maintaining such ‘discipline-linking’ co- research employing the concept ‘ecosystem services’ most operation is essential if DAI and sociology are to come often amounts to concrete ecosystem service valuations and closer together” (Strübing 1998:442). suggestions for (and evaluations of) policy implementations. “Epistemically, the main challenge to interdisciplinary The conceptual discussions cited above thus constitute the game research is the lack of cross-disciplinarily ‘robust’ minority of grand concept research. research questions, constructs, and paradigms […]instead Because they are vague, yet highly politicized, grand con- of trying to first establish consensus about shared ques- cepts are ambivalent as to whose interests they further. Those tions and ways of answering them, game scholars might advocating their application thus run the risk of reinforcing look for shared boundary objects…” (Deterding existing power structures. However, these same concepts also 2017:535), italics in original. carry transformational potential. It is therefore important to be 4. Moving towards more structure: reflexive when using them (Gillard 2016). “As the researchers advance towards a concrete result, Grand concepts constitute an overarching frame, a rallying they are engaged in the process of making the boundary point for researchers from a variety of disciplines. The con- object strongly structured, as they specify its parameters cepts help researchers demarcate a unified front of interdisci- for the concrete case they are working on” (Wesselink plinary research, and make that front politically relevant. 2009:410). From the other direction, activists and advocates can utilize these concepts in order to make their policy suggestions sci- Hub-and-spoke concepts have a more instrumental role in entifically relevant. facilitating collaboration in particular projects than grand con- cepts do. These concepts unite the collaborating parties in Hub-and-spoke concepts interest (Nicolini et al. 2012) and communication (Carlile 2004). They also typically exhibit the development towards Concepts of this kind are common in smaller projects with infrastructure pointed out by Star (2010)as characteristic of specific aims, or in new interdisciplines. Smaller projects boundary objects, which grand concepts generally do not. might include local implementation of policy, or interdisci- There is no exact boundary between hub-and-spoke con- plinary workshops. I name these concepts ‘hub-and-spoke cepts and grand concepts. Concepts that are not quite as wide- concepts’ because of their role in stabilizing interdisciplinary spread as the paradigm grand concepts do not necessarily interfaces. Central aspects of hub-and-spoke concepts are the exhibit all of the characteristics above, and some of the grand following: concepts might function as hubs or spokes at local levels. In environmental studies, hub-and-spoke concepts can help sta- 1. Locality: bilize collaborations between disciplines and with stake- “This paper presents an analysis of a research project holders. If concepts are understood as both grand concepts at conducted by a network of environmental research insti- the macro scale and hubs-and-spokes at the local scale, then tutes called Partnership for European Environmental the vagueness needed for communication can be maintained Research (PEER)” (Hauck et al. 2014:376). despite standardization at local levels. “In this context of resistance, it was the task of the project ‘Integrated Assessment of the river Meuse’ (IVM) to propose a selection of politically acceptable Conclusion flood management measures that would ensure the legal level of flood protection in future…” (Wesselink Boundary objects can be made to facilitate interdisciplinary 2009:407). research in environmental studies in a number of ways. By J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:93–100 99 Carlile PR (2004) Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integra- making data and information understandable and usable tive framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ across disciplinary borders, the day-to-day work of partici- Sci 15(5):555–568 pants contributes meaningfully to the interdisciplinary ex- Charmaz K (2014) Constructing Grounded Theory, 2nd edn. SAGE change. Co-production of models and frameworks with stake- Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks Clarke AE, Star SL (2007) The Social Worlds Framework: A Theory/ holders can let their perspectives in, and allow for the produc- Methods Package. In: Hackett EJ, Amsterdamska O, Lynch ME, tion of knowledge that is better suited to deal with concrete Wajcman J (eds) Handbook of science and technology studies. societal problems. Mass: The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 113–138 Novel concepts in environmental studies can be understood Deterding S (2017) The pyrrhic victory of game studies: assessing the past, present, and future of interdisciplinary game research. Games as ‘grand concepts’ when they are applied in a broad-scoped and Culture 12(6):521–543 context. Here, their use is to create bridges between disciplines Elzinga A (2008) Participation. In: Hadorn GH, Hoffmann-Riem H, and policy in a more general sense. In such contexts, main- Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye D, Pohl C, taining vagueness despite pushes for standardization is crucial Wiesmann U, Zemp E (eds) Handbook of Transdisciplinary in order for the concept to facilitate communication. It is also Research. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 345–359 Fominykh M, Prasolova-Førland E, Divitini M, Petersen SA (2016) important to reflect on aspects of power when using concepts Boundary objects in collaborative work and learning. Inf Syst on this level due to their vagueness allowing them to be used Front 18(1):85–102 in any actor’s interest. When concepts are applied at the local Geertz C, Darnton R (2017) The interpretation of cultures, 3rd edn. Basic level, they are better understood as ‘hubs and spokes’.In this Books, New York Gillard R (2016) Questioning the diffusion of resilience discourses in role, concepts serve to stabilize collaboration, being ap- pursuit of transformational change. Global Environmental Politics proaches or goals that start out vague, but become more struc- 16(1):13–20 tured as collaboration goes on. Having the same concept can Hauck J, Görg C, Werner A, Jax K, Bidoglio G, Maes J, Furman E, be understood as both a grand concept and a hub or spoke in Ratamäki O (2014) Transdisciplinary enrichment of a linear research different contexts alleviates the tension between the vagueness process: experiences gathered from a research project supporting the European biodiversity strategy to 2020. Interdiscip Sci Rev 39(4): needed for communication and the standardization needed for 376–391 policymaking. Hermelingmeier V, Nicholas KA (2017) Identifying five different per- spectives on the ecosystem services concept using Q methodology. Funding Information Open access funding provided by University of Ecol Econ 136:255–265 Gothenburg. Hirschhorn L (2018) Beyond BART (boundaries, authority, role and task): creative work and the developmental project. Organ Soc Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Dyn 18(1):41–61 Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adap- Jadhav A, Anderson S, Dyer MJB, Sutton PC (2017) Revisiting ecosys- tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as tem services: assessment and valuation as starting points for envi- you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, pro- ronmental politics. Sustainability (Switzerland) 9(10) vide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were Klein JT (2008) Evaluation of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary made. The images or other third party material in this article are included Research: A Literature Review. American Journal of Preventive in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a Medicine 35(2, Supplement):S116–S123 credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Klein JT (2017) Typologies of Interdisciplinarity. In: Frodeman R, Klein Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by JT, Pacheco RCDS (eds) The Oxford Handbook of statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain Interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this Lee CP (2007) Boundary negotiating artifacts: unbinding the routine of licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. boundary objects and embracing Chaos in collaborative work. Comput Supported Coop Work 16(3):307–339 Levesque VR, Calhoun AJK, Bell KP (2019) Actions speak louder than words: designing Transdisciplinary approaches to enact solutions. J Environ Stud Sci 9(2):159–169 References Lillo-Ortega G, Aldunce P, Adler C, Vidal M, Rojas M (2019) On the evaluation of adaptation practices: a Transdisciplinary exploration of Ainscough J, de Vries Lentsch A, Metzger M, Rounsevell M, Schröter M, drought measures in Chile. Sustain Sci 14(4):1057–1069 Delbaere B, de Groot R, Staes J (2019) Navigating pluralism: un- MacGillivray BH, Franklin A (2015) Place as a boundary device for the derstanding perceptions of the ecosystem services concept. sustainability sciences: concepts of place, their value in Ecosystem Services 36 Characterising sustainability problems, and their role in fostering Bechky BA (2003) Sharing meaning across occupational communities: integrative research and action. Environ Sci Pol 53:1–7 the transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organ Sci Mattor K, Betsill M, Huayhuaca C, Huber-Stearns H, Jedd T, Sternlieb F, 14(3):312–330 Bixler P, Luizza M, Cheng AS (2014) Transdisciplinary research on Bergmann M, Jahn T (2008) CITY:Mobil: A Model for Integration in environmental governance: a view from the inside. Environ Sci Pol Sustainability Research. In: Hadorn GH, Biber-Klemm S, 42:90–100 Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye D, Pohl C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E McGreavy B, Hutchins K, Smith H, Lindenfeld L, Silka L (2013) (eds) Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, pp 89–102 Addressing the complexities of boundary work in sustainability sci- Brand FS, Jax K (2007) Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: resilience ence through communication. Sustainability (Switzerland) 5(10): as a descriptive concept and a boundary object. Ecol Soc 12(1) 4195–4221 100 J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:93–100 Meerow S, Newell JP, Stults M (2016) Defining urban resilience: a re- Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and view. Landsc Urban Plan 147:38–49 boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Nicolini D, Mengis J, Swan J (2012) Understanding the role of objects in Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Soc Stud Sci 19(3):387– cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organ Sci 23(3):612–629 420 Norman, S. J. 2014. “Grappling with Movement Models: Performing Steger C, Hirsch S, Evers C, Branoff B, Petrova M, Nielsen-Pincus M, Arts and Slippery Contexts.” Pp. 136–141 in ACM International Wardropper C, van Riper CJ (2018) Ecosystem services as boundary Conference Proceeding Series objects for transdisciplinary collaboration. Ecol Econ 143:153–160 Opdam P, Nassauer JI, Wang Z, Albert C, Bentrup G, Castella JC, Strübing J (1998) Bridging the gap: on the collaboration between sym- McAlpine C, Liu J, Sheppard S, Swaffield S (2013) Science for bolic interactionism and distributed artificial intelligence in the field action at the local landscape scale. Landsc Ecol 28(8):1439–1445 of multi-agent systems research. Symb Interact 21(4):441–464 Peçanha Enqvist J, West S, Masterson VA, Haider LJ, Svedin U, Tengö M Timmis S, Williams J (2017) Playing the interdisciplinary game across (2018) Stewardship as a boundary object for sustainability research: education–medical education boundaries: sites of knowledge, col- linking care, knowledge and agency. Landsc Urban Plan 179:17–37 laborative identities and methodological innovations. Int J Res Pennington DD (2010) The dynamics of material artifacts in collaborative Method Educ 40(3):257–269 research teams. Comput Supported Coop Work 19(2):175–199 Trompette P, Vinck D (2009) Revisiting the Notion of Boundary Object. Pennington D, Bammer G, Danielson A, Gosselin D, Gouvea J, Habron Revue d’anthropologie Des Connaissances 3, 1(1):3 G, Hawthorne D, Parnell R, Thompson K, Vincent S, Wei C (2016) van Bruggen A, Nikolic I, Kwakkel J (2019) Modeling with stakeholders The EMBeRS project: employing model-based reasoning in socio- for transformative change. Sustainability (Switzerland) 11(3) environmental synthesis. J Environ Stud Sci 6(2):278–286 van Herten J, Bovenkerk B, Verweij M (2019) One health as a moral Reddy E, Hoople G, Choi-Fitzpatrick A (2019) Interdisciplinarity in prac- dilemma: towards a socially responsible zoonotic disease control. tice: reflections on drones as a classroom boundary object. Eng Stud Zoonoses Public Health 66(1):26–34 11(1):51–64 Venable NBH (2017) Hydroclimatological data and analyses from a Risner, I. J., L. A. Naylor, and J. G. Marshall. 2019. “Interdisciplinary headwaters region of Mongolia as boundary objects in interdisci- palimpsest: visual representations of coastal change combining dig- plinary climate change research. Front Earth Sci 11(3):457–468 ital craft and geomorphology.” Journal of Maps Wenger E (2008) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and iden- Roux DJ, Nel JL, Cundill G, O’Farrell P, Fabricius C (2017) tity. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge Transdisciplinary research for systemic change: who to learn with, Wesselink A (2009) The emergence of interdisciplinary knowledge in what to learn about and how to learn. Sustain Sci 12(5):711–726 problem-focused research. Area 41(4):404–413 Sciences, National Academy of, National Academy of Engineering, and and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Zeiss R, Groenewegen P (2009) Engaging boundary objects in OMS and Research STS? Exploring the subtleties of layered engagement. Organization Star SL (2010) This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origin of a 16(1):81–100 concept. Sci Technol Hum Values 35(5):601–617 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences Springer Journals

The Grand Concepts of Environmental Studies Boundary objects between disciplines and policymakers

Download PDF
8 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/the-grand-concepts-of-environmental-studies-boundary-objects-between-UwK1qShtk0

References (45)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020
ISSN
2190-6483
eISSN
2190-6491
DOI
10.1007/s13412-020-00585-x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration is necessary in order to take on the environmental challenges facing humanity. Different disciplines, stakeholders, and policymakers need to work together to produce the knowledge necessary to create effective and just courses of action to counteract environmental problems. Recently, the notion of ‘boundary objects’ has been increasingly used within environmental studies to explain how some objects facilitate communication across the boundaries between different groups of actors. Due to their vague use in common contexts and specific use in each group, these objects let groups retain their own understanding while still communicating successfully with others. Novel concepts like ‘resilience’, ‘ecosystem services’, and ‘sustainability’ are due to their interpretive flexibility commonly described as boundary objects. However, in order to implement these concepts in concrete policy, some amount of standardization is needed. This presents a tension with the vagueness required for the facilitation of communication. This paper explicates whether and how novel concepts in environ- mental studies can be usefully understood as boundary objects. I review how boundary objects have been applied in the literature surrounding inter- and transdisciplinary collaborations, focusing especially on instances where concepts were considered to be boundary objects. I suggest that novel concepts in environmental studies can be understood as both ‘grand concepts’ in their most widespread use and as ‘hubs and spokes’ in local contexts. This allows for both vagueness at the macro level and standardization at the local level. I also explore how models, frameworks, and data have been successfully used as boundary objects. . . . . Keywords Boundary objects Interdisciplinarity Transdisciplinarity Resilience Ecosystem services Introduction Medicine 2004). Recently, much attention has been directed at the notion of ‘boundary objects’ as a theoretical perspective It has long been recognized that the challenges facing human- explaining the role of objects in inter- and transdisciplinary ity in regard to our environment transcend the boundaries of research (Levesque et al. 2019;Penningtonetal. 2016). traditional academic disciplines. Researchers need to reach Boundary objects are situated between social groups and are across those same boundaries in order to produce knowledge relevant to each group, and therefore enable communication, on how to face these environmental challenges. Inter- and mutual learning, and negotiation. They are especially relevant transdisciplinarity has therefore become central to the fields when research is co-produced with stakeholders and of environmental studies and sciences. However, these are policymakers (Bergmann and Jahn 2008; van Bruggen et al. notoriously difficult concepts to grasp, and there has been 2019; Hauck et al. 2014). Boundary objects are thus involved much discussion about what interdisciplinarity and in the production of interdisciplinary knowledge both between transdisciplinarity is and how to successfully conduct such academic disciplines and with actors outside of academia. research (Klein 2008, 2017; Sciences, National Academy of, Within environmental studies, a number of concepts have National Academy of Engineering, and and Institute of been either invented or revived in order to facilitate collabo- ration between disciplines and with stakeholders. Such con- cepts include the famous ‘resilience’, ‘ecosystem services’, * Jakob Lundgren and, of course, ‘sustainability’, as well as less widespread Jakob.Lundgren@gu.se concepts like ‘urban ecology’, ‘blue-green networks’,or ‘landscape quality’. These concepts are often described as Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden boundary objects due to their interpretive flexibility. 94 J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:93–100 However, for the most widespread ones, this status is contro- between scientists and trappers (who were amateur) by incor- versial (Ainscough et al. 2019;Brand andJax 2007). This is porating both theoretical and concrete data. It thus had mean- typically due to tensions between the concepts’ inherent ing for trappers as a way of labelling specimen, and for scien- vagueness and the need for standardization in policymaking. tists as a means of translating specimen into ecological data. Facilitating communication is weighed against concrete poli- However, the concept itself does not accurately describe either cy implementation. Is ‘boundary objects’ an appropriate way specimen or ecological data. Star and Griesemer label such of understanding these concepts, considering this tension? abstract descriptions ideal types.Theyalsoidentify The matter is complicated further by the fact that not only repositories and standardized forms as boundary objects. concepts but also frameworks, models, data, and physical ob- Carlile (2004) further develops the theoretical dimension of jects havebeenconsideredtobeboundaryobjects. boundary objects in his study of communication across de- The aim of this paper is to explicate in what ways novel partments in industrial product development. He identifies concepts, as well as other objects in environmental studies, three crucial roles that boundary objects play. Firstly, they can be understood as boundary objects. In order to do this, I constitute a shared syntax. A shared syntax allows actors to investigate how the concept of boundary objects has been express knowledge and concerns across the border between used in the literature surrounding inter- and transdisciplinary social worlds. Secondly, boundary objects bridge semantic projects. This analysis shows how ‘boundary objects’ can be boundaries by allowing actors to learn about the perspective applied in various situations stressing different aspects of the of the other. The object allows actors to specify details of their concept. I also suggest understanding conceptual boundary concerns and knowledge, so that the other side can gain a objects in environmental studies as ‘grand concepts’ and deeper understanding of them, as opposed to the mere syntac- ‘hub-and-spoke concepts’ depending on the scope in and pur- tic acknowledging of their existence. Finally, boundary ob- pose for which the concept is applied. jects overcome pragmatic boundaries by allowing for the transformation of knowledge. If a problem has occurred at an intersection of social worlds, individual actors need to be Background able to alter their understanding of the situation in order to come up with a solution that is acceptable for both. This can In their 1989 paper, Star and Griesemer coined the term be done by altering the contents (either practically or concep- ‘boundary object’ to describe “objects which both inhabit sev- tually) of a boundary object. Ideal types and objects with eral intersecting social worlds […] and satisfy the informa- coincident borders are the only types of boundary objects that tional requirements of each of them” (Star and Griesemer readily allow individuals to alter their contents. 1989:393). A boundary object must be meaningful to all rel- In her 2003 paper on the transformation of knowledge on a evant social worlds, although the meaning of that object will production floor, Bechky invokes the notion of ‘work context’ be somewhat different to every world it inhabits. to explain why some boundary objects are successful in one Nevertheless, there is sufficient overlap of meaning that the context, yet fail in another. According to her, a boundary ob- object is clearly identifiable as the same object by all relevant ject can only create common ground between two social social worlds. When these objects are employed in common, worlds if it is used in the day-to-day practice of both worlds. inter-world use, they have a weak structure, and when they are Thus, engineering drawings failed to convey engineers’ con- used within a single social world, they have a stronger struc- cerns to manufacturers because they did not reflect the phys- ture. The paradigm example of a boundary object is the state ical conception of the product from the daily work of the of California in the context of the establishment of the manufacturers (Bechky 2003). Berkeley Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. California was a In addition to theorizing about the internal properties of boundary object for a number of reasons. Firstly, there was boundary objects, there have also been discussions about the an overarching goal of preserving the Californian nature in limits of the concept. Lee (2007) argues that the term has most of the interacting social worlds. Secondly, while the geo- become a catch-all term for any (material) artefacts inhabiting graphical area of California constituted a common under- boundaries in collaborative projects. She notes that the con- standing among all social worlds, the maps utilized by actors cept was in its inception exclusively related to standardization from different worlds demonstrate how the significance of the and well-functioning routines, whereas later uses sees the con- elements of that area differed between them. The state of cept applied to more chaotic, non-routine projects. Lee instead California was described by Star and Griesemer as a boundary coins the term ‘boundary negotiating artefacts’ to describe object with coincident borders but different internal such artefacts as take part in the redrawing of boundaries configuration. and the redistribution of labour. These are not merely subject A second example representing a different kind of bound- ary object offered by Star and Griesemer is the notion of It was later stressed by Star (2010) that these four categories of boundary ‘species’. This concept served as a means of communicating objects were not meant to be exclusive, but few have added to that list. J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:93–100 95 to standards, and do not simply move passively across bound- The documents included articles, conference papers, book aries, but are actively involved in the negotiation of both. Lee chapters, and retractions. Publication years ranged from argues that there are instances where boundary negotiating 1995 to 2020 articles in press, although the majority were artefacts are mistakenly labelled as boundary objects, inadver- from 2014 and later. Out of the 247 documents, 57 were tently contributing to the dilution of that term. Pennington judged upon reading of abstracts as not relating to cross- (2010), on the other hand, recognizes the more narrow original disciplinarity or not actually applying the concept of boundary definition of boundary objects as pointed out by Lee but ar- objects. Of the remaining articles, 18 were inaccessible in such gues that the use of the concept has since evolved, and that any a way that no usable information could be extracted from boundary-crossing object could be referred to as a boundary them. From each of the resulting 172 articles, excerpts relating object. explicitly to boundary objects, along with one or two para- Star attempts to provide somewhat of an answer to the graphs of case description, were extracted. The excerpts relat- question “what is NOT a boundary object?” in her posthu- ing to boundary objects were found by using a word search for mous 2010 paper. She puts forward three aspects of boundary the term ‘boundary object’, and including the paragraphs (or a objects that need to be taken into consideration: (1) interpre- few sentences from the paragraphs) in which the term figured. tive flexibility, (2) material/organizational structure of differ- Case descriptions were generally extracted from the introduc- ent boundary objects, and (3) the dynamic of ill-structured use tory parts of articles, unless a separate section for the intro- at the common scale and well-structured use at the local scale. duction of cases was present. A boundary object need not be a physical object, or “thing”,it The collected material was coded according to a grounded is sufficient that the object is acted towards and with. theory framework (Charmaz 2014). Thus, categories were de- However, the usefulness of the concept of boundary objects rived from the material itself and were continuously re- is dependent on the scope and scale of the investigation that it evaluated in light of that material. Codes from the first round is part of. As for scale, boundary object is a particularly useful included different kinds of objects, as well as the various fields concept when studying an object at an organizational level. being described. As these codes were not used for any rigor- That is to say, even such a thing as a word can be a boundary ous quantitative analysis, I did not judge it useful to formalize object if it is central to some organized work effort, such as the them further. Having done a first round of coding, I performed interpretation of the Rosetta stone. Regarding scope, Star in- a close reading of articles according to codes, focusing in sists that the concept is at its most applicable when investigat- particular on instances where concepts were labelled as ing a clearly delineated enterprise. The American flag can be boundary objects. considered a boundary object in the context of its manufac- ture, marketing, and distribution, but for the analysis of the American flag as such other frameworks will prove more use- Variety ful (Star 2010). As noted by Lee (2007)and Star (2010), the concept of boundary objects has seen widespread and varied use across a multitude of disciplines. This variety of contexts has given Materials and methods rise to a variation in the way that the concept is used. In this section I explore some of the variation that can be seen in the The materials for this literature survey were collected by studied material. performing two searches in the database Scopus. The first was constructed to find articles that refer to boundary objects Variety of contexts and explicitly to either transdisciplinarity or interdisciplinari- ty. The second was constructed to find articles that refer to Most of the papers surveyed concern cross-disciplinary col- boundary objects and any form of cross-disciplinarity, exclud- laborations that incorporate one or more of five common ing articles from the first search. I conducted similar searches ‘themes’. Thesefivethemesare (environmental) sustainabil- in Web of Science, but found that the results were entirely ity, technology, education, art, and healthcare. The themes contained within those from Scopus, except those instances often overlap, such that some papers deal with technological where the terms had been indexed by the database itself, not education (Fominykh et al. 2016; Reddy et al. 2019), used by the authors. The searches returned a total of 247 healthcare education (Timmis and Williams 2017), or technol- documents, 119 from the first search and 128 from the second. ogy in art (Norman 2014). Not all papers touch on any of these five themes, but no other theme occurred more than once or Search string: TITLE-ABS-KEY(“boundary object” AND (interdisciplin* OR transdisciplin*)), conducted on 2019-07-16 3 4 Search string: TITLE-ABS-KEY(“boundary object” AND *disciplin* AND These do not represent disciplinary belonging. They characterize the pro- NOT (interdisciplin* OR transdisciplin*)), conducted on 2019-07-29 jects, not the participants or the authors. 96 J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:93–100 twice (except in cases where the same authors published mul- object is one of the concepts included in this framework. tiple articles based on the same case). Articles touching on Accordingly, the concept has been interrelated with a number sustainability concern descriptive or normative discussions of other terms dealing with boundary phenomena, some of of environmental issues or societal issues arise on the basis which were developed from the notion of boundary objects of these. Articles having technology as a theme concern the itself. These include ‘boundary work’, ‘boundary organiza- production, development, or implementation of some techno- tions’, ‘boundary negotiation’, and many others (Trompette logical novelty. Education involves either a case study of and Vinck 2009). some actual educational context or theoretical discussion This tendency of exploring and coining related concepts pertaining to education. Articles involving art describe pro- can also be observed in the articles surveyed. Some of the jects that were referred to as artistic or involving artefacts terms used include ‘research object’ (Bergmann and Jahn referred to as art. Healthcare involved both medical research 2008; Hermelingmeier and Nicholas 2017), ‘boundary de- and practice as well as discussions of healthcare policy. vice’ (MacGillivray and Franklin 2015), ‘fetish object’ Sustainability was the single most common theme, also being (Hirschhorn 2018), and ‘epistemic object’ (McGreavy et al. the one that most often appeared alone. 2013;Nicolini et al. 2012) among others. Here, the concept ‘boundary objects’ is used by researchers to attune to the par- ticularities of their situation of study. More than its ability to Variety of objects describe the phenomena at hand, the strength of the concept ‘boundary objects’ in these instances is its use in re-examining Throughout the material, I observed a number of categories of and developing theories and categories. This is true to the objects, some of which sometimes overlapped. These include concept’s origin in grounded theory, which is at its core about events, places, software, models or frameworks, concepts, theory-development (Charmaz 2014; Clarke and Star 2007). concrete objects, visualizations, information, standards, ele- ments of language, and activities. While it is possible to show that instances of each of these categories have at some Work-context and constructed objects point been described as boundary objects, it is not always clear in each individual case precisely what it is that is being de- As pointed out by Bechky (2003), failure of objects to func- scribed as the boundary object. In articles investigating theo- tion as boundary objects can (sometimes) be explained by retical frameworks, for instance, it is sometimes unclear their absence from the work context of collaborating partici- whether the boundary objects are the words used in the frame- pants. This insight was mirrored by many of the surveyed work, the concepts they represent, the framework itself, the articles. In particular, when information in the form of data practice of constructing the framework, or everything at once. or maps was recognized as boundary objects, the ability of all In articles dealing with sustainability, most objects were participants to utilize (and not only understand) that informa- either concepts or models/frameworks. Models and frame- tion was highlighted (Risner et al. 2019; Venable 2017). works consist of concepts in a particular interrelation, often However, in some instances, particularly involving ‘grand with an accompanying visualization, and are used in order to concepts’ (see below), boundary objects were not noted as represent ways of thinking about problems or phenomena. figuring in the day-to-day work of participants. Instead, these Some articles also viewed research data, catastrophic events, objects served a more over-arching function in facilitating or places as boundary objects (Lillo-Ortega et al. 2019; collaboration. Opdam et al. 2013; Venable 2017). Thus, within environmen- Of the articles focusing on work context, some employ the tal science, boundary objects are not usually material or con- notion of co-production to emphasize the mutual participation crete objects. of various groups in creating a boundary object (Levesque et al. 2019;Rouxet al. 2017). This illustrates a further aspect Conceptual variety of boundary objects common in some interdisciplinary con- texts. Here, artefacts are actively constructed specifically to Clarke and Star (2007) emphasize in their introduction to the function as boundary objects and are designed to exhibit the social worlds framework that its concepts are not to be seen as characteristics described in the theoretical literature. This is definitive, i.e., with rigid definitions, but rather as sensitizing: particularly common when the objects are models and frame- giving researchers an indication of where to look, rather than works (van Bruggen et al. 2019; Mattor et al. 2014). The necessary and sufficient criteria of application. Boundary notion of ‘negotiation’ figures strongly in these contexts, These categories are not meant to be theoretically meaningful in the way that and focus is on active exploration of differences in meaning those of Star and Griesemer (1989), Wenger (2008), or Carlile (2004)are. among participants. examples from each of the categories above could possibly be subsumed under The idea of constructing boundary objects is not present in any of these higher-level classifications. Simulations and data models were considered to be software in this analysis. the early theoretical explorations of the concept. There, J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:93–100 97 objects assumed the role of boundary objects as a conse- considered ‘living’, etc.). Of course, these thin definitions quence of the organizational properties of the collaboration need not to be explicit, but should always be possible to find. in which they figured and were identified as such only after From the collected materials, two archetypes of conceptual they had already assumed the role. The move towards actively boundary objects could be discerned. seeking boundary objects in order to facilitate collaboration was undertaken when the concept was imported into organi- & Grand Concepts are concepts that are policy-oriented, see zational studies (Zeiss and Groenewegen 2009). In environ- widespread use, are in tension with standardization, and mental studies, co-production of boundary objects is regularly maintain ambivalence. discussed as an effective means of incorporating stakeholders’ & Hub-and-Spoke Concepts are local to single contexts, are and policymakers’ perspectives into research. However, care objectives or approaches, and strive to stabilize the inter- must be taken that participation does not become token, but faces of exchange, while moving towards greater that stakeholders are empowered and their views accurately standardization. represented (Elzinga 2008). In the remainder of this section, I describe these two arche- types as they are characterized in the surveyed articles. Concepts as boundary objects Grand concepts In interdisciplinary collaborations, central concepts are often considered to be boundary objects. Although boundary ob- These are common in (though not exclusive to) environmental jects are more intuitively thought of as concrete things, they studies. Concepts such as ‘resilience’, ‘ecosystem services’, need not necessarily be so (Star 2010). In Star and Griesemer ‘stewardship’,and ‘sustainability’ are often discussed as 1989, the notion of species is considered to be a boundary boundary objects between science and policy. I choose to object of the ‘ideal type’ variety. If concepts are to function name them ‘grand concepts’ because of their connection to as boundary objects, they will need to exhibit the dynamics of the ‘grand challenges’ of society they are often employed in ill-structured use in the common context and well-structured describing. Central aspects of grand concepts are as follows: use in each social world. Thus, it is important that such a concept does not have a precise definition in its common 1. Widespread use: use. At the same time, however, the concept needs to be rec- “[T]he concept is used by various scientific disciplines ognized as being the same throughout all relevant social as an approach to analyze ecological as well as social- worlds. Thus, these concepts cannot be entirely without defi- ecological systems…” (Brand and Jax 2007:1). nition either. “[T]he popularity of ‘resilience’ has exploded in both I would like to posit the notion of ‘thin definitions’ to academic and policy discourse…” (Meerow et al. suggest an explanation of how concepts can be both vague 2016:39). and maintain a rigid identity. A thin definition (from Geertz “With this wide and diverse use across research, policy and Darnton (2017) distinction between thick and thin de- and practice…” (Peçanha Enqvist et al. 2018:18) scriptions) is a definition where social context is stripped 2. Orientation towards policy: away, and the culture-specific meaning of a thing is lost. “[T]he ES paradigm features prominently in policy, Star and Griesemer argue that the strength of the ideal type theoretical and activist discussions…” (Jadhav et al. as a boundary object resides in precisely this deletion of local 2017:2). contingencies (1989:410). Thickness and thinness are or “…promotes research efforts across disciplines and be- course relative notions: a (very) thin description of the sen- tween science and policy…” (Brand and Jax 2007:1) tence “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times” as 3. Tension with standardization: written on a page would consist of a description of the spatial “[T]o impose a universal definition can obstruct One relations of lines to each other, whereas a (very) thick descrip- Health’s function as a boundary object…” (van Herten tion would contain an account of both Dickensian writing and et al. 2019:27). Victorian England, and all intermediate levels of description “Standardization facilitates implementation, yet efforts would be either thick or thin depending on which they are to standardize both the concept and practice of the ES may compared to. If multiple social worlds can agree on a thin diminish its ability to function as a communication de- definition of a concept, then its identity can be maintained vice…” (Steger et al. 2018:154) without loss of context-specific meaning. For the concept of 4. Ambivalence: species, a thin definition like ‘sorts of living things’ leaves a “[T]he catchword sustainable development enables host of questions to be answered in each social world (e.g. different scientific disciplines or social groups to justify about what constitutes a ‘sort’, what things are to be their particular interest with respect to an accepted and 98 J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:93–100 ethically legitimated, societal goal […] It may thus even 2. Being either a goal or an approach: hide conflicts and power relations when different persons “Landscape quality is thereby both the objective and agree on the need for sustainability when in fact meaning the result of land use planning for water management” different things by it” (Brand and Jax 2007:9). (Wesselink 2009:409). “[T]here is a danger of overlooking the ways resilience “Although not planned to be such, the vague idea of discourses legitimize certain practices and nullify alterna- mapping, assessing, and valuing served as a boundary tives, thereby leading to undesirable outcomes and hin- object that proved capable of engaging different inter- dering transformational change” (Gillard 2016:16). ests.” (Hauck et al. 2014:382) 3. Stabilizing interfaces: Research involving these grand concepts is normally “The more promising approach is to establish ongoing intended to influence policy. Such research is usually not fo- cooperative structures […] aligned by and centered cused on exploring the concepts themselves—it is rather con- around shared research questions and tasks […] ducted under the umbrella of these concepts. For example, Establishing and maintaining such ‘discipline-linking’ co- research employing the concept ‘ecosystem services’ most operation is essential if DAI and sociology are to come often amounts to concrete ecosystem service valuations and closer together” (Strübing 1998:442). suggestions for (and evaluations of) policy implementations. “Epistemically, the main challenge to interdisciplinary The conceptual discussions cited above thus constitute the game research is the lack of cross-disciplinarily ‘robust’ minority of grand concept research. research questions, constructs, and paradigms […]instead Because they are vague, yet highly politicized, grand con- of trying to first establish consensus about shared ques- cepts are ambivalent as to whose interests they further. Those tions and ways of answering them, game scholars might advocating their application thus run the risk of reinforcing look for shared boundary objects…” (Deterding existing power structures. However, these same concepts also 2017:535), italics in original. carry transformational potential. It is therefore important to be 4. Moving towards more structure: reflexive when using them (Gillard 2016). “As the researchers advance towards a concrete result, Grand concepts constitute an overarching frame, a rallying they are engaged in the process of making the boundary point for researchers from a variety of disciplines. The con- object strongly structured, as they specify its parameters cepts help researchers demarcate a unified front of interdisci- for the concrete case they are working on” (Wesselink plinary research, and make that front politically relevant. 2009:410). From the other direction, activists and advocates can utilize these concepts in order to make their policy suggestions sci- Hub-and-spoke concepts have a more instrumental role in entifically relevant. facilitating collaboration in particular projects than grand con- cepts do. These concepts unite the collaborating parties in Hub-and-spoke concepts interest (Nicolini et al. 2012) and communication (Carlile 2004). They also typically exhibit the development towards Concepts of this kind are common in smaller projects with infrastructure pointed out by Star (2010)as characteristic of specific aims, or in new interdisciplines. Smaller projects boundary objects, which grand concepts generally do not. might include local implementation of policy, or interdisci- There is no exact boundary between hub-and-spoke con- plinary workshops. I name these concepts ‘hub-and-spoke cepts and grand concepts. Concepts that are not quite as wide- concepts’ because of their role in stabilizing interdisciplinary spread as the paradigm grand concepts do not necessarily interfaces. Central aspects of hub-and-spoke concepts are the exhibit all of the characteristics above, and some of the grand following: concepts might function as hubs or spokes at local levels. In environmental studies, hub-and-spoke concepts can help sta- 1. Locality: bilize collaborations between disciplines and with stake- “This paper presents an analysis of a research project holders. If concepts are understood as both grand concepts at conducted by a network of environmental research insti- the macro scale and hubs-and-spokes at the local scale, then tutes called Partnership for European Environmental the vagueness needed for communication can be maintained Research (PEER)” (Hauck et al. 2014:376). despite standardization at local levels. “In this context of resistance, it was the task of the project ‘Integrated Assessment of the river Meuse’ (IVM) to propose a selection of politically acceptable Conclusion flood management measures that would ensure the legal level of flood protection in future…” (Wesselink Boundary objects can be made to facilitate interdisciplinary 2009:407). research in environmental studies in a number of ways. By J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:93–100 99 Carlile PR (2004) Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integra- making data and information understandable and usable tive framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ across disciplinary borders, the day-to-day work of partici- Sci 15(5):555–568 pants contributes meaningfully to the interdisciplinary ex- Charmaz K (2014) Constructing Grounded Theory, 2nd edn. SAGE change. Co-production of models and frameworks with stake- Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks Clarke AE, Star SL (2007) The Social Worlds Framework: A Theory/ holders can let their perspectives in, and allow for the produc- Methods Package. In: Hackett EJ, Amsterdamska O, Lynch ME, tion of knowledge that is better suited to deal with concrete Wajcman J (eds) Handbook of science and technology studies. societal problems. Mass: The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 113–138 Novel concepts in environmental studies can be understood Deterding S (2017) The pyrrhic victory of game studies: assessing the past, present, and future of interdisciplinary game research. Games as ‘grand concepts’ when they are applied in a broad-scoped and Culture 12(6):521–543 context. Here, their use is to create bridges between disciplines Elzinga A (2008) Participation. In: Hadorn GH, Hoffmann-Riem H, and policy in a more general sense. In such contexts, main- Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye D, Pohl C, taining vagueness despite pushes for standardization is crucial Wiesmann U, Zemp E (eds) Handbook of Transdisciplinary in order for the concept to facilitate communication. It is also Research. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 345–359 Fominykh M, Prasolova-Førland E, Divitini M, Petersen SA (2016) important to reflect on aspects of power when using concepts Boundary objects in collaborative work and learning. Inf Syst on this level due to their vagueness allowing them to be used Front 18(1):85–102 in any actor’s interest. When concepts are applied at the local Geertz C, Darnton R (2017) The interpretation of cultures, 3rd edn. Basic level, they are better understood as ‘hubs and spokes’.In this Books, New York Gillard R (2016) Questioning the diffusion of resilience discourses in role, concepts serve to stabilize collaboration, being ap- pursuit of transformational change. Global Environmental Politics proaches or goals that start out vague, but become more struc- 16(1):13–20 tured as collaboration goes on. Having the same concept can Hauck J, Görg C, Werner A, Jax K, Bidoglio G, Maes J, Furman E, be understood as both a grand concept and a hub or spoke in Ratamäki O (2014) Transdisciplinary enrichment of a linear research different contexts alleviates the tension between the vagueness process: experiences gathered from a research project supporting the European biodiversity strategy to 2020. Interdiscip Sci Rev 39(4): needed for communication and the standardization needed for 376–391 policymaking. Hermelingmeier V, Nicholas KA (2017) Identifying five different per- spectives on the ecosystem services concept using Q methodology. Funding Information Open access funding provided by University of Ecol Econ 136:255–265 Gothenburg. Hirschhorn L (2018) Beyond BART (boundaries, authority, role and task): creative work and the developmental project. Organ Soc Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Dyn 18(1):41–61 Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adap- Jadhav A, Anderson S, Dyer MJB, Sutton PC (2017) Revisiting ecosys- tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as tem services: assessment and valuation as starting points for envi- you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, pro- ronmental politics. Sustainability (Switzerland) 9(10) vide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were Klein JT (2008) Evaluation of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary made. The images or other third party material in this article are included Research: A Literature Review. American Journal of Preventive in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a Medicine 35(2, Supplement):S116–S123 credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Klein JT (2017) Typologies of Interdisciplinarity. In: Frodeman R, Klein Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by JT, Pacheco RCDS (eds) The Oxford Handbook of statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain Interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this Lee CP (2007) Boundary negotiating artifacts: unbinding the routine of licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. boundary objects and embracing Chaos in collaborative work. Comput Supported Coop Work 16(3):307–339 Levesque VR, Calhoun AJK, Bell KP (2019) Actions speak louder than words: designing Transdisciplinary approaches to enact solutions. J Environ Stud Sci 9(2):159–169 References Lillo-Ortega G, Aldunce P, Adler C, Vidal M, Rojas M (2019) On the evaluation of adaptation practices: a Transdisciplinary exploration of Ainscough J, de Vries Lentsch A, Metzger M, Rounsevell M, Schröter M, drought measures in Chile. Sustain Sci 14(4):1057–1069 Delbaere B, de Groot R, Staes J (2019) Navigating pluralism: un- MacGillivray BH, Franklin A (2015) Place as a boundary device for the derstanding perceptions of the ecosystem services concept. sustainability sciences: concepts of place, their value in Ecosystem Services 36 Characterising sustainability problems, and their role in fostering Bechky BA (2003) Sharing meaning across occupational communities: integrative research and action. Environ Sci Pol 53:1–7 the transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organ Sci Mattor K, Betsill M, Huayhuaca C, Huber-Stearns H, Jedd T, Sternlieb F, 14(3):312–330 Bixler P, Luizza M, Cheng AS (2014) Transdisciplinary research on Bergmann M, Jahn T (2008) CITY:Mobil: A Model for Integration in environmental governance: a view from the inside. Environ Sci Pol Sustainability Research. In: Hadorn GH, Biber-Klemm S, 42:90–100 Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye D, Pohl C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E McGreavy B, Hutchins K, Smith H, Lindenfeld L, Silka L (2013) (eds) Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, pp 89–102 Addressing the complexities of boundary work in sustainability sci- Brand FS, Jax K (2007) Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: resilience ence through communication. Sustainability (Switzerland) 5(10): as a descriptive concept and a boundary object. Ecol Soc 12(1) 4195–4221 100 J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:93–100 Meerow S, Newell JP, Stults M (2016) Defining urban resilience: a re- Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and view. Landsc Urban Plan 147:38–49 boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Nicolini D, Mengis J, Swan J (2012) Understanding the role of objects in Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Soc Stud Sci 19(3):387– cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organ Sci 23(3):612–629 420 Norman, S. J. 2014. “Grappling with Movement Models: Performing Steger C, Hirsch S, Evers C, Branoff B, Petrova M, Nielsen-Pincus M, Arts and Slippery Contexts.” Pp. 136–141 in ACM International Wardropper C, van Riper CJ (2018) Ecosystem services as boundary Conference Proceeding Series objects for transdisciplinary collaboration. Ecol Econ 143:153–160 Opdam P, Nassauer JI, Wang Z, Albert C, Bentrup G, Castella JC, Strübing J (1998) Bridging the gap: on the collaboration between sym- McAlpine C, Liu J, Sheppard S, Swaffield S (2013) Science for bolic interactionism and distributed artificial intelligence in the field action at the local landscape scale. Landsc Ecol 28(8):1439–1445 of multi-agent systems research. Symb Interact 21(4):441–464 Peçanha Enqvist J, West S, Masterson VA, Haider LJ, Svedin U, Tengö M Timmis S, Williams J (2017) Playing the interdisciplinary game across (2018) Stewardship as a boundary object for sustainability research: education–medical education boundaries: sites of knowledge, col- linking care, knowledge and agency. Landsc Urban Plan 179:17–37 laborative identities and methodological innovations. Int J Res Pennington DD (2010) The dynamics of material artifacts in collaborative Method Educ 40(3):257–269 research teams. Comput Supported Coop Work 19(2):175–199 Trompette P, Vinck D (2009) Revisiting the Notion of Boundary Object. Pennington D, Bammer G, Danielson A, Gosselin D, Gouvea J, Habron Revue d’anthropologie Des Connaissances 3, 1(1):3 G, Hawthorne D, Parnell R, Thompson K, Vincent S, Wei C (2016) van Bruggen A, Nikolic I, Kwakkel J (2019) Modeling with stakeholders The EMBeRS project: employing model-based reasoning in socio- for transformative change. Sustainability (Switzerland) 11(3) environmental synthesis. J Environ Stud Sci 6(2):278–286 van Herten J, Bovenkerk B, Verweij M (2019) One health as a moral Reddy E, Hoople G, Choi-Fitzpatrick A (2019) Interdisciplinarity in prac- dilemma: towards a socially responsible zoonotic disease control. tice: reflections on drones as a classroom boundary object. Eng Stud Zoonoses Public Health 66(1):26–34 11(1):51–64 Venable NBH (2017) Hydroclimatological data and analyses from a Risner, I. J., L. A. Naylor, and J. G. Marshall. 2019. “Interdisciplinary headwaters region of Mongolia as boundary objects in interdisci- palimpsest: visual representations of coastal change combining dig- plinary climate change research. Front Earth Sci 11(3):457–468 ital craft and geomorphology.” Journal of Maps Wenger E (2008) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and iden- Roux DJ, Nel JL, Cundill G, O’Farrell P, Fabricius C (2017) tity. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge Transdisciplinary research for systemic change: who to learn with, Wesselink A (2009) The emergence of interdisciplinary knowledge in what to learn about and how to learn. Sustain Sci 12(5):711–726 problem-focused research. Area 41(4):404–413 Sciences, National Academy of, National Academy of Engineering, and and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Zeiss R, Groenewegen P (2009) Engaging boundary objects in OMS and Research STS? Exploring the subtleties of layered engagement. Organization Star SL (2010) This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origin of a 16(1):81–100 concept. Sci Technol Hum Values 35(5):601–617

Journal

Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences – Springer Journals

Published: Jan 21, 2020

There are no references for this article.