The Coevolution of Objects and Boundaries over Time: Materiality, Affordances, and Boundary Salience

Leonardi, Paul M.; Bailey, Di; Pierce, Casey

doi:10.1287/isre.2018.0822

Cited by 45 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Besides, editors typically do not work in one single group; they work on different articles in distinct groups. Therefore, it is also necessary to consider the boundaries between groups (Leonardi et al , 2019). Future research may consider the knowledge boundaries on Wikipedia to further explore the relationship between knowledge boundaries, group heterogeneity and group interaction process which may provide more accuracy and deeper explanation on the working mechanism of knowledge integration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

OKC-enabled online knowledge integration: role of group heterogeneity and group interaction process

Qiu

Zuo

et al. 2020

ITP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeOnline knowledge integration has been an important concern of the online knowledge community as it can lead to various positive outcomes of online knowledge coproduction. This paper identifies online knowledge integration factors by considering group heterogeneity and group interaction process.Design/methodology/approachBased on the categorization-elaboration model (CEM) and interactive team cognition (ITC) theory, a research model that reflects the antecedent's factors and mediating factors of online knowledge integration was developed and empirically examined based on data collected from 2,339,836 data extracted from Wikipedia.FindingsGroup interaction process plays an essential mediator role in online knowledge integration. Group knowledge heterogeneity negatively influences online knowledge integration and group experience heterogeneity positively, and they both positively promote online knowledge integration through group interaction process with different paths.Research limitationsOur research concerns the OKC context in one setting (Wikipedia). We expect that the results will generalize to other OKC platforms.Practical implicationsThe findings of the study could assist the online knowledge community's organizers to understand the motivational mechanisms of online knowledge integration. Group interaction process could be regarded as the key role to promote group wisdom and maintain group independence.Social implicationsWe advance the understanding of the online knowledge integration and gain a richer understanding of the importance of group interaction independence for online knowledge integration based on the agreement of group wisdom. It suggested keeping group interaction independence is an important aspect for highly online knowledge integration among heterogeneity groups.Originality/valueThis study extends CEM and ITC theory to the domain of knowledge integration context and finds the mechanism between group heterogeneity and online knowledge integration by introducing the group interaction process.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

OKC-enabled online knowledge integration: role of group heterogeneity and group interaction process

Qiu

Zuo

et al. 2020

ITP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While studies of technology affordances often build on ethnographic accounts and observation studies (e.g. Leonardi et al, 2019), our study differs by being primarily interview-based. Interviews have been defended as a method for enquiring into practices and experiences of how things and materiality may afford certain options for action (Gond et al, 2018), not least from an individual perspective (Lamont and Swidler, 2014; Nicolini, 2009).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The affordances concept is widely deployed in studies of technology-in-use to analyse different meanings and kinds of action that technologies make possible or constrain (e.g. Faraj and Azad, 2012; Leonardi et al, 2019). Affordances may refer to possible features of the object as perceived by an observer, which acknowledges how technology develops unexpected agency and is efficacious and consequential without determining action (Davis and Chouinard, 2016; Zammuto et al, 2007).…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Counting sleep: Ambiguity, aspirational control and the politics of digital self-tracking at work

Elmholdt

Haahr

2020

Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Existing perspectives on normative and aspirational control have undertheorised how digital technologies such as digital self-tracking might alter what kinds of control is possible in the workplace. This article remedies this lack by studying the affordances of digital self-tracking in the workplace. Empirically, we draw on a case study of digital sleeptracking in relation to a well-being initiative in a private energy company, Encorp. Our analysis reveals how digital self-tracking affords body visibility and remote management but also creates affordance opacity and an ambiguous space of autonomy and control. We theorise how digital self-tracking in the workplace both enables new forms of aspirational control, and creates ambiguity and new limits to control. We conclude by discussing challenges and opportunities for future research on digital self-tracking in the workplace.

show abstract

“…The term refers to a broad range of artefacts that ‘are plastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites’ (Star, 1989, p. 393). Examples include physical product prototypes, design drawings, standardised reporting forms, and various types of IT‐related tools such as document archives, enterprise resource planning systems, and social media (Bechky, 2003; Boland Jr et al, 2007; Leonardi et al, 2019; Tim et al, 2017). Because boundary objects comprise team members' individual and collective practices, and in turn can actively influence those practices, boundary objects become ‘writing and rewriting devices’—tools used to objectify and negotiate services or work demands, which can make otherwise highly complex collective actions manageable and controllable (Callon, 2002).…”

Section: Managing Knowledge Boundaries Using Boundary Objectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge coordination via digital artefacts in highly dispersed teams

Fang

Neufeld

Zhang

2021

Information Systems Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Virtual teams face the unique challenge of coordinating their knowledge work across time, space and people. Information technologies, and digital artifacts in particular, are essential to supporting coordination in highly dispersed teams, yet the extant literature is limited in explaining how such teams produce and reproduce digital artifacts for coordination. This paper describes a qualitative case study that examined the day-to-day practices of two highly dispersed virtual teams, with the initial conceptual lens informed by Carlile's ( 2004) knowledge management framework. Our observations suggest that knowledge coordination in these highly dispersed virtual teams involves the continuous production and reproduction of digital artifacts (which we refer to as technology practices) through three paired modes: "presenting-accessing" (related to knowledge transfer); "representing-adding" (related to knowledge translation); and "molding-challenging" (related to knowledge transformation). We also observed an unexpected fourth pair of technology practices, "withholding-ignoring", that had the effect of delaying certain knowledge coordination processes. Our findings contribute to both the knowledge coordination literature and the practical use of digital artifacts in virtual teams. Future research directions are discussed.

show abstract

The Coevolution of Objects and Boundaries over Time: Materiality, Affordances, and Boundary Salience

Cited by 45 publications

References 49 publications

OKC-enabled online knowledge integration: role of group heterogeneity and group interaction process

OKC-enabled online knowledge integration: role of group heterogeneity and group interaction process

Counting sleep: Ambiguity, aspirational control and the politics of digital self-tracking at work

Knowledge coordination via digital artefacts in highly dispersed teams

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About