“The second important concept used to explain how museum workers managed both diversity and cooperation is that of boundary objects. This is an analytic concept of those scientific objects which both inhabit several intersecting social worlds (see the list of examples in the previous section) and satisfy the informational requirements of each of them. 15 Boundary objects are objects which are both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and the constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites. They are weakly structured in common use, and become strongly structured in individual-site use. These objects may be abstract or concrete. They have different meanings in different social worlds but their structure is common enough to more than one world to make them recognizable, a means of translation. The creation and management of boundary objects is a key process in developing and maintaining coherence across intersecting social worlds” (Star and Griesemer 1989, 393).
“In analyzing our case study, we see two major factors contributing to the success of the museum: methods standardization and the development of boundary objects. … His [Grinnell’s] elaborate collection and curation guidelines established a management system in which diverse allies could participate concurrently in the heterogeneous work of building a research museum. … There was an intimate connection between the management of scientific work as exemplified by these precise standards of collection, duration and description, and the content of the scientific claims made by Grinnell and others at the museum.” (Star and Griesemer 1989, 392-393).
“The second important concept used to explain how museum workers managed both diversity and cooperation is that of boundary objects. This is an analytic concept of those scientific objects which both inhabit several intersecting social worlds (see the list of examples in the previous section) and satisfy the informational requirements of each of them. 15 Boundary objects are objects which are both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and the constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites. They are weakly structured in common use, and become strongly structured in individual-site use. These objects may be abstract or concrete. They have different meanings in different social worlds but their structure is common enough to more than one world to make them recognizable, a means of translation. The creation and management of boundary objects is a key process in developing and maintaining coherence across intersecting social worlds” (Star and Griesemer 1989, 393).
This historical project is looking at the development of research museums in early twentieth century. So, the technology was all analog. They were essentially building a database, but they had to figure out how to store this data about flora and fauna through technologies of preserving the actual remains of the animals and plants. Grinnell also needed detailed descriptions of the habitat in which the specimens were living at the time they were captured. Otherwise he would not be able to conduct his analysis of the impact of environment on evolution. Thus data negligence, loss, and destruction was a huge obstacle to be overcome through discipline and through technologies of standardization. The standardized methods of data collection, including the stock forms/templates to be filled out, were crucial to ensuring the quality of the data collected. The technology of money was also necessary to enlist the help of trappers, creating the opportunity for market-like exchanges.
Star and Griesemer do not delineate a list of character traits that would characterize an “ideal collaborator,” rather they take a more ecological approach. Through their analysis of this particular historical example of a successful collaboration, they show how the collaborative interaction of numerous parties, inhabiting appreciably different “social worlds,” was facilitated by material semiotic process of identifying/utilizing boundary objects and developing standardized practices (For more detail see the TECHNO, META, and PRACTICE annotations). The fact that both Grinnell and Alexander were rather personable and had strong personalities did of course play a role, but the point of the article is to argue that collaboration is not so much dependent on the character traits of individuals as it is on the configuration of the relations between unique groups and individuals, and the way these relations are mediated by material-semiotic objects and practices.
Star and Griesemer are trying to both explain how large, cooperative, scientific projects, with groups of diverse participants, inhabiting different social worlds, can take place without the need of first establishing consensus.
Star and Griesemer are trying to distinguish their approach from the framework of “interresement” developed by Latour-Callon-Law. The primary way that they go about this is by emphasizing an “ecological” approach, with many Obligatory Points of Passage (OPPs), there in avoiding the idea that all scientific actors are “funneled” through one single OPP. See below
At the time of the collaboration being analyzed, the UC System was still in its infancy and was therefore seeking legitimation and prestige. The state was experiencing tremendous population growth and urban development, along with corresponding losses of local animals and habitats. The geopolitical boundary of the state of California was a pivotal “boundary object.” It set clear parameters for the project that all parties could identify with, though from quite different vantage points. The UC bureaucracy served as means of legitimization and preservation of data.
The “natural” stores of data, being the local flora and fauna, were being lost to development. The project of preserving a record of California’s wildlife, as well as type of analysis Grinnell was attempting to undertake, would require droves of meticulously prepared specimen. The labor-intensive process of trapping, recording, transporting, and preserving specimens required a considerably large and diverse labor force. Decomposition presented itself as a formidable enemy to recording and preserving this data.
In researching a historical case, the authors do acknowledge the character, type, and distribution of the data resources to which they were limited: “The more limited work discussed in this paper is, in part, conditioned by the historical record - for us as scholars, scientific publications are the boundary objects which are also obligatory passage points! Records concerning the entrepreneurs who served as administrators of the museum are kept in the central archives of the university which housed the museum. Records concerning the many other elements of the network of such amateur collectors who contributed specimens to the museum and articles to naturalist society newsletters are not equally centralized. Nevertheless, it is important not to mistake the search heuristic of starting with the centralized records for a theoretical model of the structure of the network itself” (Star and Griesemer 1989, 396).
Star and Griesemer do make explicit the fact that they are presenting and analyzing a case where the collaboration was notably successful. They also make sure to note that boundary objects are simply one means of facilitating collaboration. Others are less voluntary. “The production of boundary objects is one means of satisfying these potentially conflicting sets of concerns. Other means include imperialist imposition of representations, coercion, silencing and fragmentation” (Star and Griesemer 1989, 413). In footnote 66, they acknowledge that they were made aware of this discursive gap/risk by an external reviewer: “We are grateful to an anonymous referee for drawing our attention to the limits of the cooperation model, and the importance of conflict and authority in science-making.”
Based on this acknowledgement, however, I am not sure that the authors have paid enough attention to the degree that these elements of conflict are present in the situation they describe, even if they are attenuated to be made more tolerable. Likewise, I am still wondering if these scholars are arguing that boundary objects are the only “voluntary-ish” means of establishing collaboration/cooperation across social worlds. And if they are, whether or not they are being too hasty.
The sponsor, Alexander, was obviously financially powerful. She had to be pleased with the project in order to ensure it would continue to receive funding. Grinnell, the scientist, was the highest scientific authority, having the final say about the quality of the data as well as its ultimate significance for scientific theory. The collectors and trappers were powerful in that, without them, the necessary store of data would not be collected. And the UC administrators were powerful in the sense of providing the entire project a sense of institutional value/social significance. They also offered a certain level of assurance that their work would be preserved and utilized well into the future.