Running head: BOUNDARY OBJECT THEORY 1

Boundary Object Theory:

Origins, Development, and Applications
Adam Worrall
Florida State University
Running head: BOUNDARY OBJECT THEORY 2

Boundary Object Theory:

Origins, Development, and Applications
Boundary object theory, developed 21 years ago in science and technology studies by
Susan Leigh Star, has been applied to and extended within many disciplines, including library
and information science (LIS). Researchers can use it to study the interactions that take place and
the objects that people create and use in the context of crossing the boundaries of different social
worlds and communities. Within LIS, researchers have particularly applied boundary object
theory to the information behavior of users, communities, and organizations, and how these
behaviors relate to information systems that cross between multiple social and information
worlds. This paper discusses the origins of boundary object theory as developed by Star and
Griesemer (1989), the intellectual traditions of sociology and science and technology studies it
originated from, how Star and others have developed and modified it over time, and how
researchers have applied it within the LIS field.
Initial Development
Boundary object theory initially developed in the late 1980s; Susan Leigh Star and James
R. Griesemer first published an article about the theory in Social Studies of Science in 1989. This
article was titled—in part—‖Institutional Ecology, ‗Translations‘ and Boundary Objects‖ (Star
& Griesemer, 1989), and looked at how the University of California-Berkeley‘s Museum of
Vertebrate Zoology developed over time, considering the various stakeholders and actors present
in this development. It has been highly cited; Web of Science claims 670 citations (about 32 per
year), while Google Scholar claims about 2,100 citations across multiple listings for the article
(about 100 per year).
Background
Theorists. At the time of the theory‘s development, Star was an assistant professor of
information and computer science at the University of California, Irvine (Star & Griesemer,
1989). She had worked and trained in sociology and ethnography with Anselm Strauss, one of
the two originators of grounded theory, and in 1983 wrote her PhD thesis in sociology at the
University of California, San Francisco, on the ecology of work surrounding the invention of
―the theory of localization of function in the brain in England at the end of the 19th century‖
(Zachry, 2008, p. 439). She had also become interested in artificial intelligence and computer
science after her work with Carl Hewitt of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on
Running head: BOUNDARY OBJECT THEORY 3

using the scientific community as a metaphor for artificial intelligence (Zachry, 2008, p. 438). At
UC Irvine she worked with Rob Kling and others on the impact of technology and computing on
society (at large and small scales), an area of research since labeled ―social informatics‖ by Kling
(1999) and others.
Griesemer was an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of California, Davis,
and had been in that position since 1984 (Griesemer, 2010; Star & Griesemer, 1989). His prior
education included a 1983 PhD in the conceptual foundations of science from the University of
Chicago, as well as a master‘s degree in biology and an undergraduate degree in genetics.
Griesemer also had research experience with Chicago‘s Museum of Science and Industry
(Griesemer, 2010).
Intellectual traditions. As might be expected from Star‘s background and training,
boundary object theory developed partly from the work of Strauss (1978) on social worlds,
within the symbolic interactionism school of sociology. Strauss believed the study of such
worlds, at any scale, should not be confined to their discourse but also consider their ―activities,
memberships, sites, technologies, and organizations‖ (p. 121), taking an ecological approach. In
particular, he theorized that social worlds featured (a) one or more ―primary‖ activities, (b)
locations ―where activities occur,‖ (c) technology that allowed activities to be carried out, and—
in established social worlds—(d) ―organizations … to further … activities‖ (p. 122). Social
worlds, Strauss argued, also ―intersect … under a variety of conditions‖ (p. 122). It is in these
intersections between different social worlds that Star and Griesemer (1989) theorized the
existence of boundary objects.
Star and Griesemer also based boundary object theory on Latour and Callon‘s conception
of interessement: the process of translating ―the concerns of the non-scientist into those of the
scientist‖ studying a particular situation (Star & Griesemer, 1989, p. 389). However, Star and
Griesemer considered interessement and analyses associated with it too limiting. Rather than
focusing on one viewpoint as Latour and Callon did, they felt an ecological approach to analysis
was necessary to consider all of the possible viewpoints, and thus the ―indeterminate number of
coherent sets of translations‖ caused by the intersections between multiple social worlds (Star &
Griesemer, 1989, p. 390).
Boundary object theory thus arose from and in the growing intellectual traditions of
science and technology studies and the study of interactions between social worlds, the latter an
Running head: BOUNDARY OBJECT THEORY 4

ecological approach ―grouped loosely under the rubric ‗Chicago school sociology‘‖ (Star, 1990,
p. 46). These fields were almost exclusively qualitative in nature. Star‘s background also led to
the almost immediate application of boundary object theory to ―issues that [had arisen] in …
[distributed] artificial intelligence research‖ (p. 48), particularly in arguing for testing systems
vis-à-vis community-based goals, rather than via psychological tests. The field of distributed
artificial intelligence was, therefore, another possible influence on the theory‘s initial
development. While a more quantitative field than Chicago school sociology, its influence on
boundary object theory was primarily in the qualitative realm.
The Theory
As stated in Paper 1, Star and Griesemer (1989) felt that the heterogeneity of the
participants in the Berkeley Museum for Vertebrate Zoology and the need for their cooperation
for the museum to be a success were ―central issues‖ (p. 387) that required ―translation[s] among
[their] social worlds‖ (p. 388). This problem of translation—corresponding to but going beyond
interessement—led them to conceptualize boundary objects as objects that crossed the
boundaries between multiple social worlds, being used within and adapted to many of them
―simultaneously‖ (Star & Griesemer, 1989, p. 408). Such boundary objects, which may be
abstract or concrete, are considered structurally weak when used across worlds, but are seen as
structurally strong when created and used in individual worlds (p. 393). The ―different‖ and
overlapping meanings they have across social worlds can cause ―mismatches,‖ which require
negotiation (p. 412). Successful negotiation, Star and Griesemer noted, requires careful
management of the boundary objects, their representations, and the interfaces they provide
between social worlds. Maintaining ―coherence‖ across and between social worlds is a critical
role of boundary objects (p. 393).
Rather than focusing solely on the social world of the scientist, as Latour and Callon had
done, Star and Griesemer (1989) examined the social worlds of the museum‘s director, the
museum‘s founder and chief patron, amateur collectors, trappers, and the University of
California administration in order to fully document and explain the museum‘s growth and
success. As stated in Paper 1, they then identified boundary objects that crossed between these
worlds, including ―specimens, field notes, museums and maps of particular territories‖ (p. 408),
which were used to accomplish the shared goals of the stakeholders. In particular, they found
four different types of boundary objects: repositories (e.g. libraries or museums), ideal types
Running head: BOUNDARY OBJECT THEORY 5

(such as species and atlases) ―abstracted from all domains‖ (p. 410), geographic spaces (e.g.
California), and standardized forms (e.g. for collected artifacts). Star (1990, p. 48) noted ―these
[were] only analytic distinctions‖; within these broad categories there were subtle differences
between different boundary objects.
Boundary object theory as thus originated was based both on previous theories and in
empirical observations, including both inductive and deductive development. It was intended as a
substantive theory (as defined by Glazier & Grover, 2002), applying mostly to an applied
problem—translation between different social worlds—in the field of science and technology
studies. Star did not expect or ―anticipate that it would be widely picked up upon at all‖ (Zachry,
2008, p. 453). However, her application of it to the field of artificial intelligence (Star, 1990) was
the first step in many that have transformed it into a grand theory (as defined by Glazier &
Grover, 2002).
Further Development
Boundary object theory has not sat still since 1989. Griesemer, however, has remained in
the Department of Philosophy at the University of California, Davis, progressing through
associate professor and professor titles to his current role as chair of the department (Griesemer,
2010). His work since 1989 has included book chapters and journal articles on the history and
philosophy of biological science and on social studies of biological science; his recent focus has
been on evolution and biodiversity. He has not written any further articles with Star, however,
and has not contributed further to boundary object theory since 1989. On the other hand, Star,
her colleagues, and other researchers have developed the theory further.
By Star
Star has worked at a number of institutions since 1989, including the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the University of California campuses at Irvine and San
Diego. Starting in 2004 she was a professor at the Center for Science, Technology, and Society
at Santa Clara University (Santa Clara University, 2004; Zachry, 2008), and has recently been
hired as a full professor and Chair in Library and Information Sciences at the University of
Pittsburgh‘s School of Information Sciences (University of Pittsburgh, 2009). Besides her work
with boundary object theory, she has contributed both theory and research to the fields of science
and technology studies, social studies of science and scientific communities, computer-supported
cooperative work, artificial intelligence, social informatics, and library and information science
Running head: BOUNDARY OBJECT THEORY 6

(LIS). Within the latter discipline, her contributions have been especially felt in two areas:
classification, categorization, and information organization; and information behavior.
Since 1989, Star has both applied boundary object theory within these fields and
extended the scope of the problems it addresses. Her most cited work—besides her article with
Griesemer—is Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences, written with Geoffrey
Bowker (Bowker & Star, 1999). They argued that classifications often serve as boundary objects,
―inhabit[ing] several communities of practice and satisfy[ing] the informational requirements of
each of them‖ (p. 297). As boundary objects, classifications ―are one way … [to manage] the
tension between divergent viewpoints‖ (p. 292). When natural classification systems ―collide,‖
Bowker and Star noted that more boundary objects are created, in the form of new classification
systems to serve social worlds (p. 297). Bowker and Star also introduced the concept of
boundary infrastructures: sets or ―regimes of boundary objects‖—especially information objects
and systems—that support multiple communities of practice and social worlds (p. 313). Like
individual boundary objects, boundary infrastructures are flexible enough to allow ―local
variation,‖ but have ―sufficient consistent structure‖ to provide consistent standards across
communities (p. 314). The concept of boundary infrastructures broadens and extends the scope
of boundary object theory to cover entire sets of systems, organizations, repositories, etc.; it is a
useful addition to the theory‘s explanatory power.
Star has also applied boundary object theory to groups other than Strauss‘s social worlds,
including Lave and Wenger‘s communities of practice (see Bowker & Star, 1999, p. 294; Star,
2002, p. 118) and Chatman‘s information worlds (Burnett, Besant, & Chatman, 2001; Chatman,
1992, 1996), the latter in conjunction with Bowker and Neumann (see Star, Bowker, &
Neumann, 2003). She has applied the theory to electronic community systems, digital libraries,
and other information systems (see Star et al., 2003; Star & Ruhleder, 1996). As stated in Paper
1, she has also—with Bowker and Neumann—expanded upon the concept of coherence,
considering the ―convergence‖ between ―information artifacts‖—various systems and tools that
are used to store, display, and retrieve information—and the communities of users that use them,
applying the term ―information world‖ (from Chatman) to the result if and when communities
and the information artifacts they use ―are fitted to each other‖ (Star et al., 2003, p. 244; see also
Bowker & Star, 1999, pp. 46-49). This is an alternative approach to the use of boundary object
Running head: BOUNDARY OBJECT THEORY 7

theory, starting with the boundary objects themselves rather than with the social worlds that use
them (as Star & Griesemer, 1989, did).
Star has recently stated she believes boundary objects are ―interpretively flexible‖ in
some but not all locations (Zachry, 2008, p. 452), and that many researchers have not considered
this. She also has argued that boundary objects differ in their nature and shape ―depending on the
work or informational needs of the different social groups‖ or worlds that are creating, using, and
modifying them (p. 452); little study of different types, natures, and shapes of boundary objects
has been done. She is currently working on a book extending boundary object theory and
exploring ―the idea of different types of boundary objects‖ (p. 454), titled Boundary Objects and
the Poetics of Infrastructure (University of Pittsburgh, 2009).
By Others
While Star has clearly advanced her own theory the furthest, other researchers have also
contributed to the continuing development of boundary object theory. Henderson (1991)
examined the role of sketches, drawings, and other visual diagrams in the work of engineers,
particularly how the introduction of formal systems that computerized these diagrams
significantly affected the relations between social worlds. She used boundary object theory to
conceptualize the diagrams as boundary objects, also adding her own conceptualization of
―conscription devices‖ (p. 452). She defined these as deliberately constructed objects that ―enlist
group participation‖ and contain ―knowledge created and adjusted through group interaction …
[with] a common goal‖ (p. 456). Since these conscription devices were used by different roles
(designers, shop workers, etc.), Henderson argued they were also boundary objects and thus
crossed social worlds. The diagrams had to ―remain sufficiently flexible‖ to allow transfer of
knowledge between these workers and result in a successful project (p. 458). Unfortunately,
Henderson found that the flexibility of the boundary objects was ―paralyzed‖ by the introduction
of ―interlocking‖ computer systems and databases, due to their large size and perceived fixity (p.
464). Circumventions of the systems often led to problems further down the road, especially
when—as often happened—design engineers were not conscripted and left out of the loop.
Henderson‘s extensions to boundary object theory, particularly in studying the enlistment of
participants from multiple social worlds via conscription devices, are a useful addition to the
theory. Indeed, Star herself ―really like[d] what [Henderson] has done‖ with boundary object
theory (Zachry, 2008, p. 452).
Running head: BOUNDARY OBJECT THEORY 8

Another area where researchers have further developed boundary object theory is in
exploring the degree of flexibility boundary objects have. Star has said that most studies using
her theory have not considered this as strongly as necessary (Zachry, 2008). Fujimura (1992)
argued boundary objects were ―disadvantageous for establishing … stabilization of allies behind
facts‖ (pp. 174-175); in other words, too flexible. Rather than providing a standardized set of
facts and methods, boundary objects can result in some facts and methods becoming distributed
and accepted across multiple social worlds, while others are not; thus facts may not be as stable
as desired. Because of these perceived failings of boundary object theory as originally
developed, Fujimura conceptualized ―standardized packages‖ as less abstract and more
structured than boundary objects (p. 176). Such packages combined multiple boundary objects
with ―standardized methods … in ways which further restrict and define each object,‖ reducing
the possible interpretations without ―entirely defin[ing] them‖ (p. 176).
Fujimura (1992) then used this concept in a study of ―why and how the molecular
biological [approach] in cancer research developed‖ (p. 176). She found that the standardized
package of ―abstract, general oncogene theory and the specific, standardized technologies‖
promoted to study cancer allowed this approach to gain traction with scientists and researchers
across multiple social worlds (p. 179). ―Unlike boundary objects,‖ Fujimura argued, ―the
[standardized] package fundamentally changed local practices in enrolled scientific laboratories
in ways which extend[ed] and solidif[ied] … molecular genetic representations of cancer‖ (p.
180). One could have conceptualized some of the standardized tools Fujimura identified as
boundary objects, such as databases. However, she found such databases were not ―useful‖
unless information was ―standardized‖ (p. 200), not just in local contexts (as argued by boundary
object theory) but global context as well. One can consider Fujimura‘s work either an extension
of boundary object theory or a new theory that adopts some of its concepts. In either case, it is a
useful addition to the body of research, one that stresses that not all boundary objects share the
same degree of flexibility across social worlds. However, such objects still need some limited
level of flexibility in order to be successfully adopted and used across social worlds.
As briefly noted in Paper 1, Gal, Yoo, and Boland (2004) also looked at the flexibility of
boundary objects, in their case in the context of the architecture and engineering industry. Taking
the concept of information artifacts (also seen in Star et al., 2003), they found that these changed
over time as they were created, shared, and used by construction firms, architects, and engineers.
Running head: BOUNDARY OBJECT THEORY 9

Acting as boundary objects, they changed and shaped not just the social worlds of the various
stakeholders in a construction project, but also their information worlds (in the sense meant by
Chatman, discussed earlier) and their information behavior. Gal and colleagues focused on the
changes and adjustments they found in social identity, infrastructure, community, and the
boundary objects themselves, and developed a model of ―the dynamic interplay‖ amongst these
(p. 198). Their model reinforces and expands upon the ever-changing and flexible nature of
many boundary objects, needing to adjust to the changing situation, context, and social and
information worlds they are created and used within.
Finally, Carlile (2002) expanded upon the different categories of boundary objects
discussed by Star and Griesemer (1989): repositories, ideal types, geographic spaces, and
standardized forms. He defined them in the context of developing new products in business,
calling ideal types ―platonic … objects or models‖ instead and combining them in his analysis
with standardized forms (Carlile, 2002, p. 451). He also considered standardized methods along
with forms, since their basic nature was very similar. Carlile then explored and discussed some
of the characteristics of successful boundary objects (i.e. those that produce high levels of
coherence and convergence): (a) ―a shared syntax or language‖ for knowledge representation (p.
451), shortened to ―representing‖ (p. 453); (b) a way for ―individuals to specify and learn about
their differences and dependencies across a given boundary‖ (p. 452), shortened to ―learning‖;
and (c) a facilitation of ―individuals ... jointly transform[ing] their knowledge‖ (p. 452),
shortened to ―transforming‖ (p. 453). He further found that geographic spaces did not have
learning or transforming characteristics and repositories were also lacking transforming
characteristics. Carlile‘s work has been quite highly cited according to Web of Science,
especially in management; business, library and information science, and computer science have
also cited his article some. It is a useful consideration to boundary object theory—albeit one
perhaps requiring further confirmatory research—extending the consideration of different types
of boundary objects and how their characteristics might differ.
Applications
Researchers have increasingly used boundary object theory across a wide variety of
disciplines. A citation analysis using Web of Science finds the number of citations of Star and
Griesemer‘s (1989) article has, with few exceptions (1993, 2000, and 2009) continually
increased since its initial publication. This is especially true recently; there were over twice as
Running head: BOUNDARY OBJECT THEORY 10

many citations of Star and Griesemer‘s work in 2008 compared with 2005. While 36 fields have
cited the article more than five times, the analysis implies the heaviest use of boundary object
theory and/or its concepts has been in the fields of history and philosophy of science,
management, library and information science (LIS), and sociology, with slightly lesser use in
computer science. Use in sociology has—at least per Web of Science—leveled off over the last
five years, while use in LIS and computer science has picked up. This shift can be at least partly
correlated with Star‘s growing research and publications in the LIS field over the last two
decades.
Applications of boundary object theory have included the study of communities,
organizations, information systems (in various guises), and information behavior. A particular
focus in LIS, especially more recently, has been on the information behavior of users,
communities, and organizations and how it relates to information systems—such as databases
and digital libraries—serving as boundary objects. Such studies also examine the various social
and information worlds—and various communities of practice—that these objects necessarily
translate and interface between.
By Star
Besides her original study in conjunction with Griesemer (Star & Griesemer, 1989), Star
has conducted other studies using her own theory. Initially, she applied the theory to scientific
groups (as seen in the original study) and within the field of artificial intelligence (see Star,
1990). However, she later moved on to considering classifications as boundary objects (Bowker
& Star, 1999) as well as studying other kinds of communities and organizations and the
information systems they used, areas clearly within library and information science. An early
example of the latter was her work with Ruhleder (Star & Ruhleder, 1996) studying the Worm
Community System (WCS), an early ―electronic community system‖ and digital library. This
study used elements of boundary object theory—albeit loosely—to examine the different groups
that used the WCS‘s infrastructure, the different levels of communication between these groups,
and the different understanding of varying contexts they had. The WCS should have acted as a
boundary object, but did not successfully translate between these different social and information
worlds and their differing communications and contexts.
Star‘s work with Bowker and Neumann, mentioned above and also previously in Paper 1,
used boundary object theory and the concept of convergence to study the information behavior of
Running head: BOUNDARY OBJECT THEORY 11

research scientists and students using information artifacts, specifically digital libraries (Star et
al., 2003). They found the convergence between these boundary objects and the individuals‘
information worlds was the deepest for those with the most experience, since their worlds were
much more stable and they were much more comfortable with which systems—which boundary
objects—fit the best for them. Those who had less experience, such as students, had to become
more established and integrate their own information world with those of more experienced
scholars in their field, a process of convergence that Star and her colleagues stated was ―rarely
smooth‖ (p. 248).
By Others
Bødker and Christiansen (1997) are amongst a number of other researchers who have
applied boundary object theory to studying and/or theorizing on a variety of problems; in their
case, to the design of computer and information systems for supporting cooperative work.
Drawing from both activity theory and boundary object theory, they considered the tools used for
such design as ―springboards‖ (p. 220) and boundary objects. They felt the latter was a fair
consideration because the tools ―play[ed] a role in supporting and keeping track of the systematic
reflection about … design ideas,‖ reflections often shared in large projects that crossed the
boundaries of communities of practice (p. 223). Bødker and Christiansen‘s chapter concentrated
on the use of scenarios as boundary objects, providing ―a mutual understanding of problems of
the current work‖ which would then act as a springboard for further designs and changes (p.
227). While they did not extend boundary object theory, they did use it as a basis for further
theorizing on the role of scenarios in the design and development of information systems.
In the same volume as Bødker and Christiansen‘s chapter, Bannon (1997) loosely applied
boundary object theory to examine the use of ―the very concept of the interface‖ by the field of
human-computer interaction (HCI), particularly how it acted as a ―frame‖ for the work of many
different groups ―despite their differing perspectives‖ (p. 357). He compared this against the use
of a much greater variety of boundary objects in the field of computer-supported cooperative
work (CSCW), concluding that the latter ―shows more hope‖ for being an ongoing,
interdisciplinary field of research and practice because of a larger ―core set of common
[boundary] objects‖ (p. 375).
Pawlowski, Robey, and Raven‘s (2000) study, noted previously in Paper 1, used
boundary object theory, Lave and Wenger‘s communities of practice theory, and the concept of
Running head: BOUNDARY OBJECT THEORY 12

convergence (discussed above and by Star et al., 2003) to help develop a model of the ―key
aspects of both the activities and context for the support of shared information systems by IT
professionals‖ (Pawlowski et al., 2000, p. 334). They did not study or analyze users of
information systems, their use of such systems, or their information behavior in any way.
However, they did apply boundary object theory to the problems presented by an information
system crossing community boundaries, in this case across the various communities of practice
present in an organization. Pawlowski and her colleagues thus first identified a boundary
object—in this case a given information system—and then examined its interaction, coherence,
and convergence with groups and communities.
Van House (2003) drew from a number of different theories, including boundary object
theory, in her study of the Calflora subset of the University of California–Berkeley Digital
Library. She found that this system had removed many of the social and technical barriers to
sharing data, and as such the social and information worlds of its users were relatively well
integrated and translated between. However, users still raised concerns over (a) the misuse or
misinterpretation of data by those from other social worlds; (b) the amount of additional work
needed to make shared data presentable, understandable, and accountable for; and (c) conflicts
with other fields, particularly computer scientists. Van House found these issues in Calflora
stressed the difficulties in the digital library, as a boundary object, crossing all of the boundaries
between the different social and information worlds that its users were a part of. She particularly
found trust to be a major issue, arguing that in order to build such trust, developers of digital
libraries should conceptualize them and have them act as boundary objects: converging users‘
social and information worlds together and supporting their current and emerging work
processes, while retaining a common system identity.
Gal, Yoo, and Boland (2004), as discussed earlier and in Paper 1, also used boundary
object theory to examine users of information in the context of the architecture and engineering
industry. The systems and information artifacts used by construction firms, artifacts, and
engineers acted as ever-changing boundary objects that changed and shaped the social and
information worlds of these users, as well as their information behavior. As noted above, they
developed a model focusing on ―the dynamic interplay‖ between social identity, infrastructure,
community, and the boundary objects themselves (p. 198).
Running head: BOUNDARY OBJECT THEORY 13

Finally, Gasson (2005) used elements of boundary object theory—albeit loosely—in

applying Carlile‘s (2002) characteristics of the different types of boundary objects discussed
above to the ―design [and] manufacture … of products for the telecommunications industry‖ by
an engineering firm (Gasson, 2005, ―Organizational Background‖ section, para. 1). Her study
found that ―new uses of boundary objects signal[ed] a change in genre … for the group,‖ where
each stage in the process of design used different boundary objects with different characteristics
in different ways (Discussion section, para. 4; also see Gasson‘s Table 4). From the findings
Gasson developed a model of ―modes of knowledge use‖ during each of the stages of design
(Discussion section, Figure 5), which she felt could be applied to the sharing and construction of
knowledge for ―problem-solving in most organizations‖ (Conclusion section, para. 1).
Conclusion
Despite Star‘s lack of expectation that it would be ―widely picked up upon‖ (Zachry,
2008, p. 453), boundary object theory has certainly been widely applied both within and outside
its founding disciplines of sociology and science and technology studies. The concepts of social
worlds, translation, coherence, convergence, and boundary objects themselves have proven
useful, especially to studies of information systems and their users within library and information
science. Continuing work on boundary object theory by Star, her colleagues, and other
researchers has also cemented its prominent role as a theory for studying the interrelations
between communities, organizations, information systems, and information behavior.
Running head: BOUNDARY OBJECT THEORY 14

References
Bannon, L. J. (1997). Dwelling in the ―great divide‖: The case for HCI and CSCW. In G. C.
Bowker, S. L. Star, W. Turner, & L. Gasser (Eds.), Social science, technical systems, and
cooperative work: Beyond the great divide (pp. 355-377). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Bødker, S., & Christiansen, E. (1997). Scenarios as springboards in CSCW design. In G. C.
Bowker, S. L. Star, W. Turner, & L. Gasser (Eds.), Social science, technical systems, and
cooperative work: Beyond the great divide (pp. 217-233). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Burnett, G., Besant, M., & Chatman, E. A. (2001). Small worlds: Normative behavior in virtual
communities and feminist bookselling. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 52, 536-547. doi:10.1002/asi.1102
Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new
product development. Organization Science, 13, 442-455.
Chatman, E. A. (1992). The information world of retired women. New York, NY: Greenwood
Press.
Chatman, E. A. (1996). The impoverished life-world of outsiders. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science, 47, 193-206. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-
4571(199603)47:3<193::AID-ASI3>3.0.CO;2-T
Fujimura, J. H. (1992). Crafting science: Standardized packages, boundary objects, and
―translation‖. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 168-211).
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Gal, U., Yoo, Y., & Boland, R. J. (2004). The dynamics of boundary objects, social
infrastructures and social identities. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 4,
193-206.
Gasson, S. (2005). The dynamics of sensemaking, knowledge, and expertise in collaborative,
boundary-spanning design. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4).
Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/gasson.html
Glazier, J. D., & Grover, R. (2002). A multidisciplinary framework for theory building. Library
Running head: BOUNDARY OBJECT THEORY 15

Trends, 50, 317-329.

Griesemer, J. R. (2010). James Griesemer [Resume]. Retrieved from
http://web.me.com/griesemer/Griesemer/Resume.html
Henderson, K. (1991). Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases: Visual communication,
conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering. Science, Technology,
and Human Values, 16, 448-473. doi:10.1177/016224399101600402
Kling, R. (1999). What is social informatics and why does it matter? D-Lib Magazine, 5(1).
doi:10.1045/january99-kling
Pawlowski, S. D., Robey, D., & Raven, A. (2000). Supporting shared information systems:
boundary objects, communities, and brokering. In W. J. Orlikowski (Ed.), Proceedings of
the 21st International Conference on Information Systems (pp. 329-338). Atlanta, GA:
Association for Information Systems. Retrieved from
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=359640.359759
Santa Clara University. (2004, July 8). Center for Science, Technology and Society gets new
director [Press release]. Santa Clara University: Press releases. Retrieved from
http://www.scu.edu/news/releases/release.cfm?c=4369
Star, S. L. (1990). The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous
distributed problem solving. In L. Gasser & M. N. Huhns (Eds.), Distributed artificial
intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 37-54). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Star, S. L. (2002). Infrastructure and ethnographic practice: Working on the fringes.
Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 14(2), 107-122.
Star, S. L., Bowker, G. C., & Neumann, L. J. (2003). Transparency beyond the individual level
of scale: Convergence between information artifacts and communities of practice. In A.
P. Bishop, N. A. Van House, & B. P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social
practice in design and evaluation (pp. 241-269). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‗translations‘ and boundary objects:
Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley‘s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.
Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001
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
Running head: BOUNDARY OBJECT THEORY 16

Strauss, A. (1978). A social world perspective. In N. K. Denzip (Ed.), Studies in symbolic

interaction: An annual compilation of research (Vol. 1, pp. 119-128). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
University of Pittsburgh. (2009, August 12). Susan ―Leigh‖ Star joins iSchool faculty. School of
Information Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.ischool.pitt.edu/news/article/star.php
Van House, N. A. (2003). Digital libraries and collaborative knowledge construction. In Digital
library use: Social practice in design and evaluation (pp. 271-295). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Zachry, M. (2008). An interview with Susan Leigh Star. Technical Communication Quarterly,
17, 435-454. doi:10.1080/10572250802329563