Boundary objects as rhetorical exigence: Knowledge mapping and interdisciplinary cooperation at the Los Alamos National Laboratory

Journal of Business and Technical Communication

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 129-154

  Wilson, Greg ^a   Herndl, Carl G ^b  

^a LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

^b IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Boundary object; Boundary work; Epistemic symmetry; Knowledge mapping; Rhetorical exigency; Trading zone

Indexed keywords

EID: 33847378406     PISSN: 10506519     EISSN: 15524574     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1050651906297164     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2. Burke, K. (1969). A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
3. Fujimura, J. (1992). Crafting science: Standardized packages, boundary objects, and "translation." In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 168-211). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4. Galison, P. (1997). The trading zone: Coordinating action and belief. Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics (pp. 781-845). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5. Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
6. Gieryn, T. (1983). Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781-795.
7. Gieryn, T. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8. Harris, R. (2005). Rhetoric and incommensurability. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
9. Jameson, F. (1992). Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of late capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
10. Katz, S., & Miller, C. (1996). The low-level radioactive waste siting controversy in North Carolina: Toward a rhetorical model of risk communication. In C. Herndl & S. Brown (Eds.), Green culture: Environmental rhetoric in contemporary America (pp. 111-140). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
11. Koehler, A., & Klamann, R. (2004). Gromit: A tool for systems ethnography (LA-UR-04-4370). Los Alamos, NM: Los Alamos National Laboratory.
12. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14. Miller, C. (2005). Novelty and heresy in the debate on nonthermal effects on electromagnetic fields. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Rhetoric and incommensurability (pp. 646-506). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
15. Prelli, L. (1997). The rhetorical construction of scientific ethos. In R. Harris (Ed.), Landmark essays on rhetoric of science: Case studies (pp. 87-106). Mahwah, NJ: Hermagoras.
16. Smith, B. (1997). Belief and resistance: The dynamics of contemporary intellectual debate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17. Star, S. (Ed.). (1995). Ecologies of knowledge: Work and politics in science and technology. Albany: State University of New York Press.
18. Star, S., & 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.
19. Taylor, C. (1996). Defining science: A rhetoric of demarcation. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
20. Waddell, C. (1996). Saving the Great Lakes: Public participation in environmental controversy. In C. Herndl & S. Brown (Eds.), Green culture: Environmental rhetoric in contemporary America (pp. 141-165). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
21. Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22. Wilson, A., McNamara, L., & Wilson, G. (2007). Information integration for complex systems. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 92, 121-130.