Search

Yolŋu Aboriginal people's knowledge about water ("gapu") and its governance has strong cultural significance and meaning in East Arnhem Land Aboriginal worlds in northern Australia. This study used transdisciplinary research methods to explore the ways in which Yolŋu Aboriginal gapu and Western science hydrological knowledge can work together and contribute towards water management on Milingimbi Island, a small, resource-constrained, bedrock island. Transcending disciplinary boundaries is distinctly different to an interdisciplinary, socio-hydrological perspective, which can pose a risk to hybridizing Aboriginal knowledge and Western science. Community engagement activities and workshops were conducted as part of a three-year research project to bring together the incommensurable knowledge communities. A participatory three-dimensional mapping exercise created a shared space, facilitating an open-dialogue exchange of insight and knowledge among Aboriginal knowledge authorities, hydrologists, public servants, and academic researchers. This paper prompts readers to reconsider the ways water can be perceived and conserved in a decolonizing way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the trajectory of a novel evaluation device for customer satisfaction with service encounters and the performance of financial advisors. Drawing on literature on quantification and commensuration, boundary objects and bipartite collaboration, we explore the set-up and collaboration between employer and trade union in the design phase and the actual use and translation of the valuation system. The data stems from a multi-year, multisite study of banking in two Nordic countries. The analysis illustrates how, when some operational managers started using the device to suit their own purposes, the process morphed from an initial agreement into a dispute. The paper shows how quantitative systems of evaluation easily diverge from their initially proposed purposes when in use, producing reactivity and resistance among organizational members. Some financial advisors were positive about the evaluation device and the opportunity it afforded to improve performance, whereas others regarded it as another surveillance attempt for enhancing management control. We also contribute to the literature by elaborating on the relationship between reactivity and resistance on individual and collective levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Building on reinvigorated scholarly debates on the concept of value, this paper examines forms of valuation that coexist with and challenge those typically associated with capitalist natures. Based on archival, ethnographic, and interview data, we analyze a historical case of the Venezuelan Society of Speleology (SVE) that since 1967 has been exploring and mapping the country's caves. Its results are published in a national cave survey that the group manages. Not only is each cave entry the representation and materialization of the group's volunteer efforts. Each is also part of a relational regime of valuation by which all caves are worth mapping. The survey's classificatory logic not only transforms underground value, it also acts as boundary object bringing together diverse actors and promoting the SVE's collective ethos, at least in theory, of valuing all members. The survey is the fulcrum of distinct regimes of valuation, wherein value and values are two sides of the same coin. The spaces where these value/s are enacted matters, suggesting the critical contributions that geographers can make in understanding the spatial qualities that contribute to—or hinder—the materialization of certain regimes of valuation over others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many recent studies observe the increasing importance, influence, and analysis of resilience as a concept to understand the capacity of a system or individual to respond to change. The term has achieved prominence in diverse scientific fields, as well as public discourse and policy arenas. As a result, resilience has been referred to as a boundary object or a bridging concept that is able to facilitate communication and understanding across disciplines, coordinate groups of actors or stakeholders, and build consensus around particular policy issues. We present a network analysis of bibliometric data to understand the extent to which resilience can be considered as a boundary object or a bridging concept in terms of its links across disciplines and scientific fields. We analyzed 994 papers and 35,952 citations between them to reveal the connectedness and links between and within fields. We analyzed the network according to different fields, modules, and sub-fields, showing a highly clustered citation network. Analyzing betweenness allowed us to identify how particular papers bridge across fields and how different fields are linked. With the exception of a few specific papers, most papers cite exclusively within their own field. We conclude that resilience is to an extent a boundary object because there are shared understandings across diverse disciplines and fields. However, it is more limited as a bridging concept because the citations across fields are concentrated among particular disciplines and papers, so the distinct fields do not widely or routinely refer to each other. There are some signs of resilience being used as an interdisciplinary concept to bridge scientific fields, particularly in socialecological systems, which may itself constitute an emerging sub-field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this paper is to recognize and categorize the various ways that ecosystem services researchers perceive the concept and purpose of ecosystem services (ES). To do so, we employed the discourse analysis approach of Q methodology, where 33 researchers ranked 39 statements on ES derived from the literature. Factor analysis of the Q sorts allowed for the interpretation of five main perspectives on ES: a pragmatic view on nature conservation, seeing ES as useful tool (“Non-Economic Utilitarian”), a strongly value-focused perspective with a skeptical view on ES (“Critical Idealist”), an opposition to a utilitarian approach to nature conservation but seeing ES as more encompassing approach (“Anti-Utilitarian”), a focus on a methodological rather than a critical approach to ES (“Methodologist”), and a rather economic approach to environmental decision-making, in which ES is a useful tool (“Moderate Economist”). We see this plurality as illustrating both the potential of the ES concept to serve as a boundary object for collaboration, but also the threat of ineffective collaboration due to the lack of a common conceptual ground. However, as pluralism can be fruitful if handled transparently, we suggest the need for open dialogue about underlying assumptions when using a value-laden concept like ES. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports from an interpretive case study conducted in a multinational company that operates in the marine insurance industry. The study focuses on how structural diversity influences knowledge work activities performed by participants who are members of distributed networks of practice (DNoPs). In this paper, a DNoP is defined as a loosely knit, geographically dispersed group of participants who share knowledge with the purpose of solving business problems and improve daily work practices within an organization. The paper takes the view that dimensions of structural diversity such as geographical dispersion, business functions and business divisions define internal organizational boundaries. Thus, knowledge sharing in structurally diverse networks may be less efficient due to the barriers that these internal boundaries may cause. Structural diversity, however, may also enhance creativity and innovation where radical new insights arise from different perspectives introduced by the participants. Consequently, diversity and its potential boundaries embed a duality of contradictory features. The interviewees who participated in this study regarded diversity as a valuable resource. Different perceptions of business concepts, however, caused misunderstanding and conflicts between participants who worked at different business divisions and thus were geographically dispersed. Interesting findings demonstrated that the DNoPs under study went through an evolution where participants enacted through boundary spanning activities to overcome the barriers that structural diversity caused. The role of knowledge brokers and the use of boundary objects were crucial in these activities. While some boundary objects acted as obstacles, unexpected and illogical objects emerged from practice and became the most efficient boundary objects in use. Different communication media such as video- and teleconferences, email and intranet supported the boundary spanning processes. This paper brings the insight that networks were transformed by the influence of diversity, and that knowledge practices within the networks supported a shift as the networks evolved through cross-network interactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social–ecological system (SES) research is inherently cross-disciplinary which can create multiple challenges for building knowledge of SES. Some of these challenges relate to differences in ontological commitments due to theory orientation of individual disciplines. Frameworks, understood as boundary objects, have been suggested as tools for dealing with this type of challenge. This paper investigates this capacity of frameworks taking Elinor Ostroms' SES-Framework as an example. To this aim, we developed a generic approach (the SES-TheOr approach) to promote disclosure and bridge differences in ontological commitments in SES research. We then applied it for examining the use of the SES Framework as boundary object within a small cross-disciplinary research team. We found that the SES Framework provided a useful common reference and starting point for discussing variables but could not fully deal with theory orientation. We conclude by suggesting that this may partly arise due to a tension between two competing SES Framework aims: on the one hand bridging differences in ontological commitments, and on the other hand ensuring a comparative function across cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy integration between autonomous policy sectors is a tool for managing interdependent technical systems to avoid suboptimization. Biogas, regarded as a renewable energy carrier usable in the energy and transport systems, is produced from organic material such as municipal organic waste (MOW). It is connected to a number of systems and policy sectors, making biogas management an instructive case for studying policy integration processes. Swedish biogas production has increased in recent years, and in the Stockholm region there has been enormous interest in biogas production for vehicle use since the early 2000s. In this paper biogas will be discussed in the perspective that it is or has potential to be a vital part of three systems: waste, energy, and transportation. The aim is to analyse whether policy integration occurs between the systems and to explore if boundary objects can play a role when understanding policy integration processes. In examining the biogas development process, regional policy documents and interviews with stakeholders in the biogas process are used. The results indicate consensus among regional actors that biogas should be used in vehicles and that MOW should be collected for this purpose, indicating congruence of understanding of biogas. Biogas functions as a boundary object in these cases and contributes to high policy integration between the energy and waste systems. Despite consensus that biogas should be used in the transport system, there is little policy integration between the energy and transport sectors. The policy sectors of transport infrastructure and spatial planning are not concerned with fuel or biogas issues. Public transport policy focuses on the use of biogas for their vehicles, but even if biogas serves as a boundary object it is not developing into policy integration processes. The conclusion is that biogas development has resulted in integrated policymaking between the energy and waste sectors and biogas has served as a strong boundary object which has spurred that development. Between the energy and transport sectors there is little policy integration, and biogas is not a boundary object in the cases of transport infrastructure and spatial planning policy sectors. What this case shows is that if there is a lack of presence of a boundary object it suggests no preconditions for policy integration processes to start. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the U.S.A., advocates of academic freedom-the ability to pursue research unencumbered by government controls-have long found sparring partners in government officials who regulate technology trade. From concern over classified research in the 1950s, to the expansion of export controls to cover trade in information in the 1970s, to current debates over emerging technologies and global innovation, the academic community and the government have each sought opportunities to demarcate the sphere of their respective authority and autonomy and assert themselves in that sphere. In this paper, we explore these opportunities, showing how the Social Contract for Science set the terms for the debate, and how the controversy turned to the proper interpretation of this compact. In particular, we analyze how the 1985 presidential directive excluding fundamental research from export controls created a boundary object that successfully demarcated science and the state, but only for a Cold War world that would soon come to an end. Significant changes have occurred since then in the governance structures of science and in the technical and political environment within which both universities and the state sit. Even though there have been significant and persistent calls for reassessing the Cold War demarcation, a new institutionalization of how to balance the concerns of national security and academic freedom is still only in its nascent stages. We explore the value of moving from a boundary object to a boundary organization, as represented in a proposed new governance body, the Science and Security Commission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Lack of attention to scale selection may limit the utility of multidisciplinary assessments and studies. This paper integrates research on scale from several disciplines to identify commonalities. Boundary objects – flexible enough to appeal and apply to different interest groups, and yet robust enough to maintain core concepts – offer a medium to connect findings from different disciplines. We propose a boundary object on scale — a 3-dimensional framework, whose axes are reality-, model- and data-scale. This framework can be applied to facilitate an improved transdisciplinary understanding of scale and more conscious scale selection that promotes the credibility, salience and legitimacy of decision support systems. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

In this paper I explore the specific properties associated with the new knowledge produced by inter- or transdisciplinary research. Using my analysis of a land use planning study in the Meuse valley in The Netherlands, I argue that the process of knowledge integration requires the exercise of value judgement and that the outcomes are emergent. I also show that the selection of a boundary object as objective facilitates interdisciplinary research because it is shared amongst disciplines and because it necessitates judgement in its implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses the relationship between field experimentalists and simulation modellers in meteorological research on the one hand, and how this is related to climate change as a common arena of concern on the other. Climate has become the central topic in meteorological research and it is imperative to link specific research problems to climate change in order to receive funding and attract talent. In addition, climate models have become gatekeepers for claims about climate change. Hence, active participation in climate modelling processes is valuable for all parties. Observational data are used in order to develop new components — so-called parameterizations — for the climate models and these novel components therefore emerge as important boundary objects. While they serve different purposes for experimentalists and modellers in terms of translation processes, they also serve to connect these groups and reinforce their mutual dependence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The discourse in healthcare Knowledge Mobilisation (KMb) literature has shifted from simple, linear models of research knowledge production and action to more iterative and complex models. These aim to blend multiple stakeholders' knowledge with research knowledge to address the research-practice gap. It has been suggested there is no 'magic bullet', but that a promising approach to take is knowledge co-creation in healthcare, particularly if a number of principles are applied. These include systems thinking, positioning research as a creative enterprise with human experience at its core, and paying attention to process within the partnership. This discussion paper builds on this proposition and extends it beyond knowledge co-creation to co-designing evidenced based interventions and implementing them. Within a co-design model, we offer a specific approach to share, mobilise and activate knowledge, that we have termed 'collective making'. We draw on KMb, design, wider literature, and our experiences to describe how this framework supports and extends the principles of co-creation offered by Geenhalgh et al. [1] in the context of the state of the art of knowledge mobilisation. We describe how collective making creates the right 'conditions' for knowledge to be mobilised particularly addressing issues relating to stakeholder relationships, helps to discover, share and blend different forms of knowledge from different stakeholders, and puts this blended knowledge to practical use allowing stakeholders to learn about the practical implications of knowledge use and to collectively create actionable products. We suggest this collective making has three domains of influence: on the participants; on the knowledge discovered and shared; and on the mobilisation or activation of this knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]