Symbiont practices in boundary spanning: Bridging the cognitive and political divides in interdisciplinary research

Academy of Management Journal

Volumn 60, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 1387-1414

  Kaplan, Sarah ^a   Milde, Jonathan ^b   Cowan, Ruth Schwartz ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85030466282     PISSN: 00014273     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5465/amj.2015.0809     Document Type: Article

References (106)

1. Abbott, A. 1981. Status and status strain in the professions. American Journal of Sociology, 86: 819-835.
2. Abbott, A. D. 2001. Chaos of disciplines. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3. Allen, T. J. 1977. Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Allen, T. J., Tushman, M. L., & Lee, D. M. S. 1979. Technology transfer as a function of position in the spectrum from research through development to technical services. Academy of Management Journal, 22: 694-708.
5. Barley, S. R. 1996. Technicians in the workplace: Ethnographic evidence for bringing work into organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 404-441.
6. Barley, S. R., & Bechky, B. A. 1994. In the backrooms of science-The work of technicians in science labs. Work and Occupations, 21: 85-126.
7. Bechky, B. A. 2003a. Object lessons: Workplace artifacts as representations of occupational jurisdiction. American Journal of Sociology, 109: 720-752.
8. Bechky, B. A. 2003b. Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science, 14: 312-330.
9. Biancani, S., McFarland, D. A., & Dahlander, L. 2014. The semiformal organization. Organization Science, 25: 1306-1324.
10. Braun, T., & Schubert, A. 2003. A quantitative view on the coming of age of interdisciplinarity in the sciences 1980-1999. Scientometrics, 58: 183-189.
11. Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12. Burt, R. S. 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110: 349-399.
13. Burt, R. S., & Merluzzi, J. 2014. Path dependent network advantage: The serial closure hypothesis. Working Paper.
14. Carlile, P. R. 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13: 442-455.
15. Carlile, P. R. 2004. Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15: 555-568.
16. Christensen, C. M. 1997. The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
17. Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. 2005. Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35: 703-722.
18. Derry, S. J., & Schunn, C. D. 2005. Introduction to the study of interdisciplinarity:Abeautiful but dangerous beast. In S. J. Derry M. A. Gernsbacher & C. D. Schunn (Eds.), Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science: xiii-xx. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Dougherty, D. 1992. Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3: 179-202.
20. Dougherty, D., & Dunne, D. D. 2012. Digital science and knowledge boundaries in complex innovation. Organization Science, 23: 1467-1484.
21. Edmondson, C., & Nembhard, I. M. 2009. Product development and learning in project teams: The challenges are the benefits. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26: 123-138.
22. Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. 2009. Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as "epistemic objects." Organization Studies, 30: 7-30.
23. Galison, P. 1997. Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24. Galison, P. 1999. Trading zone: Coordinating action and belief. In M. Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader: 137-160. New York, NY: Routledge.
25. Galison, P. 2010. Trading with the enemy. In M. E. Gorman (Ed.), Trading zones and interactional expertise: Creating new kinds of collaboration: 25-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: SAGE Publications.
27. Gould, R. V., & Fernandez, R. F. 1989. Structures of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology, 19: 89-126.
28. Granqvist, N., Grodal, S., & Woolley, J. L. 2013. Hedging your bets: Explaining executives' market labeling strategies in nanotechnology. Organization Science, 24: 395-413.
29. Grodal, S. 2014. Constructing social and symbolic boundaries during the emergence of the nanotechnology field. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings.
30. Haas, M. R. 2006. Acquiring and applying knowledge in transnational teams: The roles of cosmopolitans and locals. Organization Science, 17: 367-384.
31. Hackett, E. 2005. Essential tensions: Identity, control, and risk in research. Social Studies of Science, 35: 787-826.
32. Hacking, I. 1983. Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
33. Hargadon, A. 2014. Brokerage and innovation. In M. Dodgson & D. Gann & N. Phillips (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation management (1st ed.): 163-180. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
34. Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. 1997. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 716-749.
35. Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. 2006. When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17: 484-500.
36. Heimeriks, G. 2013. Interdisciplinarity in biotechnology, genomics and nanotechnology. Science & Public Policy, 40: 97-112.
37. Hsu, G., Kocak, O., & Hannan, M. T. 2009. Multiple category memberships in markets: An integrative theory and two empirical tests. American Sociological Review, 74: 150-169.
38. Huising, R. 2014. The erosion of expert control through censure episodes. Organization Science, 25: 1633-1661.
39. Ihara, M., Kobayashi, M., & Sakai, Y. 2009. Human affordance. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 5: 255-272.
40. Jacobs, J., & Frickel, S. 2009. Interdisciplinarity: A critical assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 35: 43-65.
41. Jacobs, J. A. 2013. In defense of disciplines: Interdisciplinarity and specialization in the research university. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
42. Jarzabkowski, P., & Pinch, T. 2013. Sociomateriality is "the New Black:" Accomplishing, repurposing and repairing in context. M@n@gement., 16: 579-592.
43. Jeffrey, P. 2003. Smoothing the waters: Observations on the process of cross-disciplinary research collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 33: 539-562.
44. Kaplan, S. 2011. Strategy and PowerPoint: An inquiry into the epistemic culture and machinery of strategy making. Organization Science, 22: 320-346.
45. Kaplan, S., & Radin, J. 2011. Bounding an emerging technology: Para-scientific media and the Drexler-Smalley debate about nanotechnology. Social Studies of Science, 41: 457-485.
46. Kaplan, S., & Vakili, K. 2015. The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 36: 1435-1457.
47. Kellogg, K. C., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. A. 2006. Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organization Science, 17: 22-44.
48. Kellogg, K. C. 2009. Operating room: Relational spaces and micro-institutional change in two surgical teaching hospitals. American Journal of Sociology, 115: 657-711.
49. Kellogg, K. C. 2014. Brokerage professions and implementing reform in an age of experts. American Sociological Review, 79: 912-941.
50. Kennedy, M. T., & Fiss, P. C. 2013. An ontological turn in categories research: From standards of legitimacy to evidence of actuality. Journal of Management Studies, 50: 1138-1154.
51. Khaire, M., & Wadhwani, R. D. 2010. Changing landscapes: The construction of meaning and value in a new market category-modern Indian art. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 1281-1304.
52. Klein, J. 2000. A conceptual vocabulary of interdisciplinary science. In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity: 3-24. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
53. Knorr-Cetina, K. 1999. Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
54. Lamont, M. 2012. Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology, 38: 201-221.
55. Lamont, M. l. 2009. How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
56. Latour, B. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
57. Lavie, D., & Drori, I. 2012. Collaborating for knowledge creation and application: The case of nanotechnology research programs. Organization Science, 23: 704-724.
58. Leahey, E., Beckman, C., & Stanko, T. 2016. Prominent but less productive: The impact of interdisciplinarity on scientists' research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62: 105-139.
59. Lenoir, T. 1997. Instituting science: The cultural production of scientific disciplines. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
60. Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. 2008. Materiality and change: Challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Information and Organization, 18: 159-176.
61. Levina, N. 2005. Collaborating on multiparty information systems development projects:Acollective reflectionin-action view. Information Systems Research, 16: 109-130.
62. Levina, N., & Vaast, E. 2005. The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 29: 335-363.
63. Lingo, E., & O'Mahony, S. 2010. Nexus work: Brokerage on creative projects. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55: 47-81.
64. Lo, J. Y. C., & Kennedy, M. T. 2015. Approval in nanotechnology patents: Micro and macro factors that affect reactions to category blending. Organization Science, 26: 119-139.
65. Majchrzak, A., More, P. H. B., & Faraj, S. 2012. Transcending knowledge differences in cross-functional teams. Organization Science, 23: 951-970.
66. Mazmanian, M., Cohn, M., & Dourish, P. 2014. Dynamic reconfiguration in planetary exploration: A sociomaterial ethnography. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 38: 831-848.
67. McCray, P. W. 2005. Will small be beautiful? Making policies for our nanotech future. History and Technology, 21: 177-203.
68. Mendelsohn, E. 1992. The social focus of scientific instruments. In R. Bud & S. E. Cozzens (Eds.), Invisible connections: Instruments, institutions, and science: 5-22. Bellingham, WA: SPIE Optical Engineering Press.
69. Meyer, M. 2007. What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency. Scientometrics, 70: 779-810.
70. Mody, C. C. 2011. Instrumental community: Probe microscopy and the path to nanotechnology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
71. Mody, C. C. M., & Choi, H. 2013. From materials science to nanotechnology: Interdisciplinary Center programs at Cornell University, 1960-2000. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, 43: 121-161.
72. Murray, F. 2010. The oncomouse that roared: Hybrid exchange strategies as a source of distinction at the boundary of overlapping institutions. American Journal of Sociology, 116: 341-388.
73. Myers, N. 2008. Molecular embodiments and the bodywork of modeling in protein crystallography. Social Studies of Science, 38: 163-199.
74. Nanoscale Science Engineering and Technology Subcommittee and National Science and Technology Council 2007. The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan. Available at: http://www.nano.gov/
75. NNI-Strategic-Plan-2007.pdf. Accessed January 2010. National Academies (U.S.). 2005. Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
76. National Nanotechnology Initiative NNI budget. Available at: http://www.nano.gov/about-nni/what/funding. Accessed August 30, 2011.
77. Nicolini, D., Mengis, J., & Swan, J. 2012. Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organization Science, 23: 612-629.
78. Obstfeld, D. 2005. Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 100-130.
79. Obstfeld, D., Borgatti, S. P., & Davis, J. 2014. Brokerage as a process: Decoupling third party action from social network structure. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 40: 135-159.
80. Orlikowski, W. J. 1996. Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7: 63-92.
81. Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. 2008. Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2: 433-474.
82. Owen-Smith, J. 2001. Managing laboratory work through skepticism: Processes of evaluation and control. American Sociological Review, 66: 427-452.
83. Padgett, J. F., & Ansell, C. K. 1993. Robust action and the rise of the medici, 1400-1434. American Journal of Sociology, 98: 1259-1319.
84. Paletz,S.,Smith-Doerr, L.,&Vardi, I. 2011.National Science Foundation Workshop Report: Interdisciplinary collaboration in innovative science and engineering field (November 4-5, 2010). Available at: http://www. bu.edu/sociology/files/2011/03/nsf-workshop-report. pdf. Accessed February 21, 2016.
85. Palmer, C. L. 2001. Work at the boundaries of science: Information and the interdisciplinary research process. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
86. Pickering, A. 1984. Constructing quarks: A sociological history of particle physics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
87. Porter, A. L., & Rafols, I. 2009. Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81: 719-745.
88. Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. 2007. How cross-disciplinary is bionanotechnology? Explorations in the specialty of molecular motors. Scientometrics, 70: 633-650.
89. Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. 2003. Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 240-267.
90. Rhoten, D. 2003.Amulti-method analysis of the social and technical conditions for interdisciplinary collaboration. Report to the National Science Foundation. September 29. Available at: http://hybridvigor.org.
91. Sá, C. 2008. "Interdisciplinary strategies" in US research universities. Higher Education, 55: 537-552.
92. Schummer, J. 2004. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59: 425-465.
93. Simmel, G. 1950. In K. H. Wolff (Ed.), The sociology of Georg Simmel. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
94. Slaughter, S., Campbell, T., Holleman, M., & Morgan, E. 2002. The "traffic" in graduate students: Graduate students as tokens of exchange between academe and industry. Science, Technology & Human Values, 27: 282-312.
95. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. 1989. Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects-Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley'sMuseum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19: 387-420.
96. Stephan, P. E. 2012. How economics shapes science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
97. Tortoriello, M., McEvily, B., & Krackhardt, D. 2015. Being a catalyst of innovation: The role of knowledge diversity and network closure. Organization Science, 26: 423-438.
98. Tortoriello, M., Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. 2012. Bridging the knowledge gap: The influence of strong ties, network cohesion, and network range on the transfer of knowledge between organizational units. Organization Science, 23: 1024-1039.
99. Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. 2002. On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13: 567-582.
100. Vertesi, J. 2012. Seeing like a Rover: Visualization, embodiment, and interaction on the Mars Exploration Rover Mission. Social Studies of Science, 42: 393-414.
101. Weingart, P. 2000. Interdisciplinarity: The paradoxical discourse. In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising Interdisciplinarity: 25-41. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
102. Wry, T.,Greenwood, R., Jennings, P. D., & Lounsbury,M. 2010. Institutional sources of technological knowledge: A community perspective on nanotechnology emergence. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 29: 149-176.
103. Wry, T., Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. 2011. Legitimating nascent collective identities: Coordinating cultural entrepreneurship. Organization Science, 22: 449-463.
104. Zammuto,R.F.,Griffith,T.L.,Majchrzak,A.,Dougherty,D. J.,& Faraj, S. 2007. Information technology and the changing fabric of organization.OrganizationScience,18: 749-762.
105. Zucker, L., Darby, M., Furner, J., Liu, R., & Ma, H. 2007. Minerva unbound: Knowledge stocks, knowledge flows and new knowledge production. Research Policy, 36: 850-863.
106. Zuckerman, E. W. 1999. The categorical imperative: Securities analysts andthe illegitimacy discount.AmericanJournal of Sociology, 104: 1398-1438.