TY - JOUR
T1 - Design as an interactive boundary object
AU - Tharchen, Thinley
AU - Garud, Raghu
AU - Henn, Rebecca L.
N1 - Funding Information:
We acknowledge funding from the CRDI, The Pennsylvania State University. CRDI did not play any role in the design of the study as well as interpreting the results and writing the manuscript. We also thank the H. Campbell and Eleanor R. Stuckeman Collaborative Design Research Fund for funding several of the interviews that we conducted. Acknowledgements
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020, The Author(s).
Copyright:
Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/12/1
Y1 - 2020/12/1
N2 - What is it about the term ‘design’ that facilitates the emergence of interdisciplinary interactions even though the term may hold different meanings for those involved? To address this question, we analyzed the vocabularies, practices and orders of worth proposed by the members of an interdisciplinary Center for Design. Our analysis revealed similarities and differences in the meanings accorded by these individuals to the term design. The analysis also revealed an awareness on their part that their notions of design were incomplete, and that they had to rely on the inputs of others. Such reflexivity was an important factor in fostering meaningful interactions between these individuals. Based on these findings, we argue that design is an interactive boundary object, which enables different meaning structures to co-exist and co-inform actors from multiple disciplines and domains. Within such a view, the emergence of interactions occurs not despite but because of the diversity of views about the notion of design itself.
AB - What is it about the term ‘design’ that facilitates the emergence of interdisciplinary interactions even though the term may hold different meanings for those involved? To address this question, we analyzed the vocabularies, practices and orders of worth proposed by the members of an interdisciplinary Center for Design. Our analysis revealed similarities and differences in the meanings accorded by these individuals to the term design. The analysis also revealed an awareness on their part that their notions of design were incomplete, and that they had to rely on the inputs of others. Such reflexivity was an important factor in fostering meaningful interactions between these individuals. Based on these findings, we argue that design is an interactive boundary object, which enables different meaning structures to co-exist and co-inform actors from multiple disciplines and domains. Within such a view, the emergence of interactions occurs not despite but because of the diversity of views about the notion of design itself.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85094632807&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85094632807&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s41469-020-00085-w
DO - 10.1186/s41469-020-00085-w
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85094632807
SN - 2245-408X
VL - 9
JO - Journal of Organization Design
JF - Journal of Organization Design
IS - 1
M1 - 21
ER -