The Coevolution of Objects and Boundaries over Time: Materiality, Affordances, and Boundary Salience

References

• Barley SR (1990) Images of imaging: Notes on doing longitudinal field work. Organ. Sci. 1(3):220–247.Link, Google Scholar
• Barley WC, Leonardi PM, Bailey DE (2012) Engineering objects for collaboration: Strategies of ambiguity and clarity at knowledge boundaries. Human Comm. Res. 38(3):280–308.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barrett M, Oborn E (2010) Boundary object use in cross-cultural software development teams. Human Relations 63(8):1199–1221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barrett M, Oborn E, Orlikowski WJ, Yates J (2012) Reconfiguring boundary relations: Robotic innovations in pharmacy work. Organ. Sci. 23(5):1448–1466.Link, Google Scholar
• Bechky B (2003) Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on the production floor. Organ. Sci. 17:99–120.Google Scholar
• Boland RJ, Tenkasi RV (1995) Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organ. Sci. 6(4):350–372.Link, Google Scholar
• Boland RJ , Yoo Y (2003) Sensemaking and knowledge management. Holsapple CW, ed. Handbook on Knowledge Management (Springer-Verlag, New York), 381–392.Google Scholar
• Bourdieu P, Wacquant LJD (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Brown JS, Duguid P (2001) Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organ. Sci. 12(2):198–213.Link, Google Scholar
• Carlile PR (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organ. Sci. 13(4):442–455.Link, Google Scholar
• Carlile PR (2004) Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ. Sci. 15(5):555–568.Link, Google Scholar
• Cecez-Kecmanovic D, Galliers RD, Henfridsson O, Newell S, Vidgen R (2014) The sociomateriality of information systems: Current status, future directions. MIS Quart. 38(3):809–830.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Collins H (2010) Tacit & Explicit Knowledge (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cramton CD, Orvis KL, Wilson JM (2007) Situation invisibility and attribution in distributed collaborations. J. Management 33(4):525–546.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ewenstein B, Whyte J (2009) Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as ‘epistemic objects.’ Organ. Sci. 30(1):7–30.Google Scholar
• Faraj S, Azad B (2012) The materiality of technology: An affordance perspective. Leonardi PM, Nardi BA, Kallinikos J, eds. Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 237–258.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galison P (1997) Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Glaser B, Strauss AL (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (Aldine, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Hawk S, Zheng W, Zmud RW (2009) Overcoming knowledge-transfer barriers in infrastructure management outsourcing: Lessons from a case study. MIS Quart. Executive 8(3):123–139.Google Scholar
• Henderson K (1999) Online and on Paper: Visual Representations, Visual Culture, and Computer Graphics in Design Engineering (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Hinds PJ, Bailey DE (2003) Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organ. Sci. 14(6):615–632.Link, Google Scholar
• Jonsson K, Holmström J, Lyytinen K. (2009) Turn to the material: Remote diagnostics systems and new forms of boundary-spanning. Inform. Organ. 19(4):233–252.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katila R (2004) Existing knowledge as a source of value: An evolutionary framework. Working paper, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
• Kellogg KC, Orlikowski WJ, Yates J (2006) Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organ. Sci. 17(1):22–44.Link, Google Scholar
• Knorr-Cetina K (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koppman S, Mattarelli E, Gupta A (2016) Third-world “sloggers” or elite global professionals? Using organizational toolkits to redefine work identity in information technology offshore outsourcing. Organ. Sci. 27(4):825–845.Link, Google Scholar
• Kotlarsky J, Scarbrough H, Oshri I (2014) Coordinating expertise across knowledge boundaries in offshore-outsourcing projects: The role of codification. MIS Quart. 38(2):607–627.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kvale S (1996) InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Lamont M, Molnar V (2002) The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Rev. Sociol. 28(1):167–195.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Latour B (1987) Science in Action (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Leonardi PM (2011a) Innovation blindness: Culture, frames, and cross-boundary problem construction in the development of new technology concepts. Organ. Sci. 22(2):347–369.Link, Google Scholar
• Leonardi PM (2011b) When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quart. 35(1):147–167.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leonardi PM (2012a) Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technical systems: What do these terms mean? How are they different? Do we need them? Leonardi PM, Nardi BA, Kallinikos J, eds. Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 25–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leonardi PM (2012b) Theoretical foundations for the study of sociomateriality. Inform. Organ. 23(2):59–76.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leonardi PM, Bailey DE (2008) Transformational technologies and the creation of new work practices: Making implicit knowledge explicit in task-based offshoring. MIS Quart. 32(2):411–436.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leonardi PM, Barley SR (2010) What’s under construction here: Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. Acad. Management Ann. 4(1):1–51.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leonardi PM, Vaast E (2017) Social media and their affordances for organizing: A review and agenda for research. Acad. Management Ann. 11(1):150–188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levina N, Vaast E (2005) The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information system. MIS Quart. 29(2):335–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levina N, Vaast E (2008) Innovating or doing as told? Status differences and overlapping boundaries in offshore collaboration. MIS Quart. 32(2):307–332.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levina N, Vaast E (2013) A field-of-practice view of boundary-spanning in and across organizations: Transactive and transformative boundary-spanning practices. Fox JL, Cooper C, eds. Boundary Spanning in Organizations: Networks, Influence, and Conflict (Routledge, New York), 285–307.Google Scholar
• Lofland J, Lofland LH (1995) Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis, 3rd ed. (Wadsworth, Belmont, CA).Google Scholar
• Lynch WT, Kline R (2000) Engineering practice and engineering ethics. Sci. Tech. Human Values 25(2):195–225.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Majchrzak A, More PHB, Faraj S (2012) Transcending knowledge differences in cross-functional teams. Organ. Sci. 23(4):951–970.Link, Google Scholar
• Majchrzak A, Cooper LP, Neece OE. (2004) Knowledge reuse for innovation. Management Sci. 50(2):174–188.Link, Google Scholar
• Metiu A, Rothbard NP (2013) Task bubbles, artifacts, shared emotion, and mutual focus of attention: A comparative study of the micro-processes of group engagement. Organ. Sci. 24(2):455–475.Link, Google Scholar
• Mutch A (2013) Sociomateriality: A wrong turning? Inform. Organ. 23(1):28–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nandhakumar J, Panourgias NS, Scarbrough H (2013) From knowing it to “getting it”: Envisioning practices in computer games development. Inform. Systems Res. 24(4):933–955.Link, Google Scholar
• Neeley TB (2012) Language matters: Status loss and achieved status distinctions in global organizations. Organ. Sci. 24(2):476–497.Link, Google Scholar
• Nicolini D, Mengis J, Swan J (2012) Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organ. Sci. 23(3):612–629.Link, Google Scholar
• Orlikowski WJ (2000) Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organ. Sci. 11(4):404–428.Link, Google Scholar
• Orlikowski WJ (2002) Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organ. Sci. 13(3):249–273.Link, Google Scholar
• Orlikowski WJ (2010) The sociomateriality of organisational life: Considering technology in management research. Cambridge J. Econom. 34(1):125–141.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Orlikowski WJ, Scott SV (2008) Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Acad. Management Ann. 2(1):433–474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Osterlund C (2008) The materiality of communicative practices. Scandinavian J. Inform. Systems 20(1):7–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pickering A (2001) Practice and posthumanism: Social theory and a history of agency. Schatzki TR, Knorr Cetina K, von Savigny E, eds. The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory (Routledge, London), 163–174.Google Scholar
• Pinto MB, Pinto JK, Prescott JE (1993) Antecedents and consequences of project team cross-functional cooperation. Management Sci. 39(10):1281–1297.Link, Google Scholar
• Robey D, Raymond B, Anderson C (2012) Theorizing information technology as a material artifact in information systems research. Leonardi PM, Nardi BA, Kallinikos J, eds. Materiality and Organizing (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 217–236.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sapsed J, Salter A (2004) Postcards from the edge: Local communities, global programs and boundary objects. Organ. Sci. 25(9):1515–1534.Google Scholar
• Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Soc. Stud. Sci. 19(3):387–420.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Strauss A, Corbin J (1994) Grounded theory methodology: An overview. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), 273–285.Google Scholar
• Vlaar PW, van Fenema PC, Tiwari V (2008) Cocreating understanding and value in distributed work: How members of onsite and offshore vendor teams give, make, demand, and break sense. MIS Quart. 32(2):227–255.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Volkoff O, Strong DM (2013) Critical realism and affordances: Theorizing IT-associated organizational change processes. MIS Quart. 37(1):819–834.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Watson-Manheim MB, Chudoba K, Crowston K (2012) Perceived discontinuities and constructed continuities in virtual work. Inform. Systems J. 22(1):29–52.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wilczynski V, Jennings JJ (2003) Creating virtual teams for engineering design. Internat. J. Engrg. Ed. 19(2):316–327.Google Scholar
• Zeiss R, Groenewegen P (2009) Engaging boundary objects in OMS and STS? Exploring the subtleties of layered engagement. Organization 16(1):81–100.Crossref, Google Scholar