Engineering Objects for Collaboration: Strategies of Ambiguity and Clarity at Knowledge Boundaries

Human Communication Research

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 280-308

  Barley, William C ^a   Leonardi, Paul M ^b   Bailey, Diane E ^c  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Northwestern University   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862626189     PISSN: 03603989     EISSN: 14682958     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01430.x     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Ackerman, M. S., & Hadverson, C. A. (2000). Reexamining organizational memory. Communications of the ACM, 43(1), 58-64.
2. Bechky, B. (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on the production floor. Organization Science, 17, 99-120.
3. Ben-Yoav, O., & Pruitt, D. G. (1984). Resistance to yielding and the expectation of cooperative future interaction in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 323-335.
4. Bowker, G., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 442-455.
6. Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15, 555-568.
7. Davenport, S., & Leitch, S. (2005). Circuits of power in practice: Strategic ambiguity as delegation of authority. Organization Studies, 26, 1603-1623.
8. Dodgson, M., Gann, D. M., & Salter, A. (2007). "In case of fire, please use the elevator": Simulation technology and organization in fire engineering. Organization Science, 18, 849-864.
9. Edelman, M. (1977). Political language: Words that succeed and policies that fail. New York: Academic Press.
10. Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227-242.
11. Eisenberg, E. M. (2007). Strategic ambiguities: Essays on communication, organization, and identity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. Eisenberg, E. M., & Witten, M. G. (1987). Reconsidering openness in organizational communication. Academy of Management Review, 12, 418-426.
13. Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as 'epistemic objects'. Organization Studies, 30, 7-30.
14. Fairhurst, G. T., Jordan, J. M., & Neuwirth, K. (1997). Why are we here? Managing the meaning of an organizational mission statement. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 25, 243-263.
15. Fujimura, J. (1992). Crafting science: Standardized packages, boundary objects and 'translation'. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture: Chicago (pp. 168-214). Chicago: University of Chicago.
16. Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433-488.
17. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Advances in the methodology of grounded theory: Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press.
18. Henderson, K. (1999). On line and on paper: Visual representations, visual culture, and computer graphics in design engineering. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Kaplan, S. (2011). Strategy and powerpoint: An inquiry into the epistemic culture and machinery of strategy making. Organization Science, 22, 320-346.
20. Kawatoko, Y. (2000). Organizing multiple vision. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7, 37-58.
21. Keleman, M. (2000). Too much or too little ambiguity: The language of total quality management. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 483-489.
22. Kellogg, K. C., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2006). Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organization Science, 17, 22-44.
23. Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2005). The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information system. MIS Quarterly, 29, 335-363.
24. Marlowe, D., Gergen, K. G., & Doob, A. N. (1966). Opponent's personality, expectation of social interaction, and interpersonal bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 206-213.
25. Marsh, N. N., & Jackson, M. H. (2008, May). Ambiguity and abstraction: Exploring the contestation of boundary objects and the modality of communication. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Montreal, Canada.
26. Pruitt, D. G. (1971). Indirect communication and the search for agreement in negotiation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1, 205-239.
27. Puri, S. K. (2007). Integrating scientific with indigenous knowledge: Constructing knowledge alliances for land management in India. MIS Quarterly, 31, 355-379.
28. Rubin, R. B., Perse, E. M., & Barbato, C. A. (1988). Conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication motives. Human Communication Research, 14, 602-628.
29. Sapsed, J., & Salter, A. (2004). Postcards from the edge: Local communities, global programs and boundary objects. Organization Studies, 25, 1515-1534.
30. Sitkin, S. B., & Bies, R. J. (1993). Social accounts in conflict situations: Using explanations to manage conflict. Human Relations, 46, 349-370.
31. Star, S. L. (1989). The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In L. Gasser & M. N. Huhns (Eds.), Distributed artificial intelligence (pp. 37-54). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
32. Star, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology & Human Values, 35, 601-617.
33. 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, 387-420.
34. Stark, D., & Pavarel, V. (2008). Powerpoint in public: Digital technologies and the new morphology of demonstration. Theory, Culture & Society, 25, 30-55.
35. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36. Weick, K. E., & Browning, L. D. (1986). Argument and narration in organizational communication. Journal of Management, 12, 243-259.