Buhl, H; Andersen, M and Klitgaard, A (2019) Boundary objects: Supporting better collaborative practice and research. In: Gorse, C and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 35th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2019, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to look for boundary objects that can develop and facilitate a contiguous “knowledge base”, that shall be created and established in collaboration between faculty and industry; bringing the students into play in a reflective learning practice. The knowledge base is the fulcrum from where universities of applied science are expected to define curricula and initiate R&D projects. Development of new technologies and processes in the construction industry appeals to closer cross-sectoral collaboration. These collaborations bring practitioners from different field of expertise together in new practices. Using the concept of boundary objects (Star & James 1989) we look into the epistemological difference inherent in the process of knowledge creation and collaboration between the university and the wider construction industry. Theory of boundary objects is attractive because it suggests a way to improve technology understanding and implementation; which is a valuable contribution to applied research depending on collaboration from a broad range of stakeholder groups (Fox, 2011). This is a conceptual paper with an empirical example. Practice theories are applied to understand boundary objects, transformative agency and double stimulation (Haapasaari & Kerosuo, 2014). The paper reflects how to design experiments and run change laboratories. A Change Laboratory is an intervention method that supports the formation of the transformative agency of participants across institutional boundaries (Engeström, 2007; Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013). The empirical example is from a Danish (global) supplier engaged in a development project about technical aid (tools) in mounting and assembling gypsum walls, e.g. the supplier gains an understanding of different professional practices and the transformation to utilise smarter tools. Working with boundary objects our paper explain the epistemological differences when developing a contiguous knowledge base for collaboration with practice, establishing an understanding of automation in construction within a concrete case.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | applied research; automation; boundary objects; collaboration; knowledge |
| Index terms: | knowledge base, laboratory, new technology, practice theory, science, gypsum, transformation, boundary object, experiment, collaboration, collaborative practice, practitioner, agency, automation, construction industry, implementation, professional practice, boundaries, knowledge creation |
| Subjects: | sociology, research management, collaborative management, information systems, industry analysis, management, theoretical framing, professional development, automation and robotics, building materials, property law, contractual arrangements, knowledge management, innovation and technology management, business, data collection methods, practitioner, specialized education |
| Topics: | Procurement, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Construction Materials, Business Strategy, Education, Organizational Design, Legal Issues, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here