A review of boundary objects in classification research

Advances in Classification Research Online

Volumn 23, Issue , 2012, Pages 52-54

  Jansen, Eva Hourihan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Boundary object; Classification research; Epistemology

Indexed keywords

BOUNDARY OBJECTS; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS; EPISTEMOLOGY; LARGE SCALE INFRASTRUCTURES; CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS; CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACHES; DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH; THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK;

EID: 84875022615     PISSN: 23249773     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.7152/acro.v23i1.14262     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Albrechtsen, H. (2000). Who wants yesterday's classifications? Information science perspectives on classification schemes in common information spaces. Workshop on Cooperative Organization of Common Information Spaces, 23-25 August.
2. Albrechtsen, H., and Jacob E.K. (1998). The Dynamics of Classification Systems as Boundary Objects for Cooperation in the Electronic Library (systems should work in tandem with users). Library Trends, 47(2), 293.
3. Day, R.E. (2011). Death of the User: Reconceptualizing subjects, objects, and their relations, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(1),78-88.
4. Fleischmann, K.R. (2007). Digital Libraries with Embedded Values: Combining Insights from LIS and Science and Technology Studies. The Library Quarterly, 77(2), 409-427.
5. Fleischmann, K.R. (2006). Boundary objects with agency: A method for studying the design-use interface, Information Society, 22(2), 77-87.
6. Foucault, M. (1980). "Two Lectures" in Power/Knowledge Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. Colin Gordon, ed. Harvester Press.
7. Hjorland, B. (2000) Library and information science: practice, theory, and philosophical basis. Information Processing and Management, 36, 501-531.
8. Hjorland, B. (2005) Empiricism, rationalism and positivism in library and information science. Journal of Documentation, 61(1) 130-155.
9. Huvila, I. (2011) The Politics of Boundary Objects: Hegemonic Interventions and the Making of a Document. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology. 62(12), 2528-2539.
10. Lampland, M., and Star, S.L. (2009). Standards and their stories. How quantifying, Classifying and formalizing practices shape everyday life. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
11. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford.
12. Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
13. Law, J. (2004). After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London: Routledge.
14. Lee, C.P. (2007). Boundary negotiating artifacts: Unbinding the routine of boundary objects and embracing chaos in collaborative work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 16(3), 307-309.
15. Luhrmann, T.M. (2006). Subjectivity. Anthropological Theory. 6(3): 345-361.
16. Mai, J.E. (2011). The modernity of classification. Journal of Documentation, 67(4), 710-730.
17. Schatzki, T.R., Knorr-Centina, K, and Savigny, E. (2000). Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. Routledge. Florence, KY.
18. Star, S.L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5): 601-617.
19. Star, S.L., and 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.
20. Star, S.L. and Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces. In Information Systems Research, Special issue on Organizational Transformation, edited by JoAnne Yates and John VanMaanen.
21. Trompette, P. and Vinck, D. (2009). Revisiting the notion of a boundary object. Translated by Neil Draper. Revue d'anthropologie des connaissances, 3(1), 3-25.
22. Van House, N. (2004). Science and technology studies and information studies Annual Review of Information Science and Technology Volume 38, Issue 1, 2004, Pages: 1-86 DOI: 10.1002/aris.1440380102.
23. Zeiss, R., and Groenewegen, P. (2009). Engaging Boundary Objects in OMS and STS? Exploring the Subtleties of Layered Engagement. Organization, 16(1), 81-100.