From the Social to the Individual and Back: The Cognitive Materialist Interpretation of Boundary Objects and Its Implications for Knowledge Organization

A perennial question in the field of knowledge organization (KO) is how to conceptualize the creation of classifications and indexing systems so as to take into account the different constituencies involved in their design, implementation, and use. One conceptualization that has proven particularly robust is that of classifications as “boundary objects ” (e.g., Albrechtsen & Jacob 1998). Formulated by sociologist of science Susan Leigh Star and developed in a number of studies (e.g., Star & Griesemer 1989; Bowker & Star 1999), the theoretical construct of boundary objects models how a given object, be it abstract or physical, is used by members of different communities of interest to coordinate action. In this model, each community of interest attaches its own meaning to the object in question: what makes the object a boundary object is that its properties are stable enough to ensure some overlap among different communities’ meanings, yet plastic enough to accommodate the significant differences between them. Boundary objects function as a site for translating meanings and negotiating differences among communities of interest: they allow these communities to align their activities in light of their respective interests and so make collaborative action possible