The Matter of Space: Bodily Performances and the Emergence of Boundary Objects During Multidisciplinary Design Meetings

REFERENCES

• Binder, T., Ehn, P., De Michelis, G., Jacucci, G., Linde, G., & Wagner, I. (2011). Design things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boujut, J.-F., & Blanco, E. (2003). Intermediary objects as a means to foster co-operation in engineering design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work,12, 205–219. doi:10.1023/A:1023980212097
   Google Scholar
• Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2000). Invisible mediators of action: Classification and the ubiquity of standards. Mind, Culture, and Activity,7, 147–163. doi:10.1080/10749039.2000.9677652
   Google Scholar
• Callon, M. (1985). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief (pp. 196–223). London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Eco, U. (1999). Kant and the platypus: Essays on language and cognition ( A. McEwen, Trans.). San Diego, CA: Harvest.
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Kärkkäinen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction,5, 319–336. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(95)00021-6
   Google Scholar
• Hall, R., Stevens, R., & Torralba, T. (2002). Disrupting representational infrastructure in conversations across disciplines. Mind, Culture, and Activity,9, 179–210. doi:10.1207/S15327884MCA0903_03
   Google Scholar
• Henderson, K. (1991). Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases: Visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering. Science Technology Human Values,16, 448–473. doi:10.1177/016224399101600402
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, K. (1998). The role of material objects in the design process: A comparison of two design cultures and how they contend with automation. Science, Technology, & Human Values,23, 139–174. doi:10.1177/016224399802300201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchins, E., & Palen, L. (1997). Constructing meaning from space, gesture, and speech. In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 24–40). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, archeology, art and architecture. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences,4, 39–103. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jornet, A., & Jahreie, C. F. (2013). Designing hybrid learning environments in a science museum: Inter-professional conceptualisations of space. In M. Childs & A. Peachey (Eds.), Understanding learning in virtual worlds (pp. 41–63). London, UK: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (2004). How to talk about the body? The normative dimension of science studies. Body and Society,10, 205–229. doi:10.1177/1357034X04042943
   Google Scholar
• Lee, C. P. (2007). Boundary negotiating artifacts: Unbinding the routine of boundary objects and embracing chaos in collaborative work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work,16, 307–339. doi:10.1007/s10606-007-9044-5
   Google Scholar
• Lemke, J. L. (1999). Typological and topological meaning in diagnostic discourse. Discourse Processes,27, 173–185. doi:10.1080/01638539909545057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble, T., DiMattia, C., Nemirovsky, R., & Barros, A. (2006). Making a circle: Tool use and the spaces where we live. Cognition and Instruction,24, 387–437. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2404_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington, D. D. (2010). The dynamics of material artifacts in collaborative research teams. Computer Supported Cooperative Work,19, 175–199. doi:10.1007/s10606-010-9108-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierroux, P., & Ludvigsen, S. (2013). Communication interrupted: Textual practices and digital interactives in art museums. In K. Drotner & K. C. Schrøder (Eds.), Social media: The connected museum (pp. 153–176). London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Roth, W.-M. (2005). Making classifications (at) work: Ordering practices in science. Social Studies of Science,35, 581–621. doi:10.1177/0306312705052102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth, W.-M. (2009). Radical uncertainty in scientific discovery work. Science, Technology & Human Values,34, 313–336. doi:10.1177/0162243907309627
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Star, S. L. (1989). The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. Distributed Artificial Intelligence, 2, 37–54.
   Google Scholar
• Star, S. L. (1998). Working together: Symbolic interactionism, activity theory, and information systems. In Y. Engestrom & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 296–318). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Star, S. L. (2007). Living grounded theory: Cognitive and emotional forms of pragmatism. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 75–94). London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Star, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science Technology Human Values,35, 601–617. doi:10.1177/0162243910377624
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Star, S. L., & Bowker, G. C. (2007). Enacting silence: Residual categories as a challenge for ethics, information systems, and communication. Ethics and Information Technology,9, 273–280. doi:10.1007/s10676-007-9141-7
   Google Scholar
• Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum Of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science,19, 387–420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research,7, 111–134. doi:10.1287/isre.7.1.111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steier, R. (2014). Posing the question: Visitor posing as embodied interpretation in an art museum. Mind, Culture, and Activity,21, 148–170. doi:10.1080/10749039.2013.878361
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streeck, J. (2013). Interaction and the living body. Journal of Pragmatics,46, 69–90. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (2011). Embodied interaction in the material world: An introduction. In J. Streeck, C. Goodwin, & C. LeBaron (Eds.), Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world (pp. 1–26). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Suchman, L. A. (1998). Constituting shared workspaces. In Y. Engeström & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 35–60). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zemel, A., Koschmann, T., LeBaron, C., & Feltovich, P. (2008). What are we missing? Usability’s indexical ground. Computer Supported Cooperative Work,17, 63–85. doi:10.1007/s10606-007-9065-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar