IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jenvss/v11y2021i1d10.1007_s13412-020-00585-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Grand Concepts of Environmental Studies Boundary objects between disciplines and policymakers

Author

Listed:
  • Jakob Lundgren

    (University of Gothenburg)

Abstract

Inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration is necessary in order to take on the environmental challenges facing humanity. Different disciplines, stakeholders, and policymakers need to work together to produce the knowledge necessary to create effective and just courses of action to counteract environmental problems. Recently, the notion of ‘boundary objects’ has been increasingly used within environmental studies to explain how some objects facilitate communication across the boundaries between different groups of actors. Due to their vague use in common contexts and specific use in each group, these objects let groups retain their own understanding while still communicating successfully with others. Novel concepts like ‘resilience’, ‘ecosystem services’, and ‘sustainability’ are due to their interpretive flexibility commonly described as boundary objects. However, in order to implement these concepts in concrete policy, some amount of standardization is needed. This presents a tension with the vagueness required for the facilitation of communication. This paper explicates whether and how novel concepts in environmental studies can be usefully understood as boundary objects. I review how boundary objects have been applied in the literature surrounding inter- and transdisciplinary collaborations, focusing especially on instances where concepts were considered to be boundary objects. I suggest that novel concepts in environmental studies can be understood as both ‘grand concepts’ in their most widespread use and as ‘hubs and spokes’ in local contexts. This allows for both vagueness at the macro level and standardization at the local level. I also explore how models, frameworks, and data have been successfully used as boundary objects.

Suggested Citation

  • Jakob Lundgren, 2021. "The Grand Concepts of Environmental Studies Boundary objects between disciplines and policymakers," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(1), pages 93-100, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:11:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s13412-020-00585-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s13412-020-00585-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13412-020-00585-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13412-020-00585-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul R. Carlile, 2004. "Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(5), pages 555-568, October.
    2. Ross Gillard, 2016. "Questioning the Diffusion of Resilience Discourses in Pursuit of Transformational Change," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(1), pages 13-20, February.
    3. Bridie McGreavy & Karen Hutchins & Hollie Smith & Laura Lindenfeld & Linda Silka, 2013. "Addressing the Complexities of Boundary Work in Sustainability Science through Communication," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(10), pages 1-27, September.
    4. Adam Jadhav & Sharolyn Anderson & Michael J. B. Dyer & Paul C. Sutton, 2017. "Revisiting Ecosystem Services: Assessment and Valuation as Starting Points for Environmental Politics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-20, September.
    5. Mikhail Fominykh & Ekaterina Prasolova-Førland & Monica Divitini & Sobah Abbas Petersen, 2016. "Boundary objects in collaborative work and learning," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 85-102, February.
    6. Anne van Bruggen & Igor Nikolic & Jan Kwakkel, 2019. "Modeling with Stakeholders for Transformative Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-21, February.
    7. Vanessa R. Levesque & Aram J. K. Calhoun & Kathleen P. Bell, 2019. "Actions speak louder than words: designing transdisciplinary approaches to enact solutions," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(2), pages 159-169, June.
    8. Davide Nicolini & Jeanne Mengis & Jacky Swan, 2012. "Understanding the Role of Objects in Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 612-629, June.
    9. Isabelle J. Risner & Larissa A. Naylor & Justin G. Marshall, 2019. "Interdisciplinary palimpsest: visual representations of coastal change combining digital craft and geomorphology," Journal of Maps, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 31-38, November.
    10. Hermelingmeier, Verena & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2017. "Identifying Five Different Perspectives on the Ecosystem Services Concept Using Q Methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 255-265.
    11. Beth A. Bechky, 2003. "Sharing Meaning Across Occupational Communities: The Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 312-330, June.
    12. Deana Pennington & Gabriele Bammer & Antje Danielson & David Gosselin & Julia Gouvea & Geoffrey Habron & Dave Hawthorne & Roderic Parnell & Kate Thompson & Shirley Vincent & Cynthia Wei, 2016. "The EMBeRS project: employing model-based reasoning in socio-environmental synthesis," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 6(2), pages 278-286, June.
    13. Steger, Cara & Hirsch, Shana & Evers, Cody & Branoff, Benjamin & Petrova, Maria & Nielsen-Pincus, Max & Wardropper, Chloe & van Riper, Carena J., 2018. "Ecosystem Services as Boundary Objects for Transdisciplinary Collaboration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 153-160.
    14. Ainscough, Jacob & de Vries Lentsch, Aster & Metzger, Marc & Rounsevell, Mark & Schröter, Matthias & Delbaere, Ben & de Groot, Rudolf & Staes, Jan, 2019. "Navigating pluralism: Understanding perceptions of the ecosystem services concept," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 1-1.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Buchs, Arnaud & Calvo-Mendieta, Iratxe & Petit, Olivier & Roman, Philippe, 2021. "Challenging the ecological economics of water: Social and political perspectives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    2. Barbara Schröter & Claudia Sattler & Jean Paul Metzger & Jonathan R. Rhodes & Marie-Josée Fortin & Camila Hohlenwerger & L. Román Carrasco & Örjan Bodin, 2023. "Exploring the role of boundary work in a social-ecological synthesis initiative," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 13(2), pages 330-343, June.
    3. Chalkiadakis, Charis & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Kraak, Menno-Jan, 2022. "Ecosystem service flows: A systematic literature review of marine systems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alberto Franco, L., 2013. "Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(3), pages 720-733.
    2. Lantto, Anna-Maija, 2022. "Obtaining entity-specific information and dealing with uncertainty: Financial accountants' response to their changing work of financial reporting and the role of boundary objects," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    3. Haibo Liu & Jürgen Mihm & Manuel E. Sosa & Manuel E. Sosa, 2018. "Where Do Stars Come From? The Role of Star vs. Nonstar Collaborators in Creative Settings," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(6), pages 1149-1169, December.
    4. Pershina, Raissa & Soppe, Birthe & Thune, Taran Mari, 2019. "Bridging analog and digital expertise: Cross-domain collaboration and boundary-spanning tools in the creation of digital innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    5. Karimikia, Hadi & Bradshaw, Robert & Singh, Harminder & Ojo, Adegboyega & Donnellan, Brian & Guerin, Michael, 2022. "An emergent taxonomy of boundary spanning in the smart city context – The case of smart Dublin," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    6. Caccamo, Marta & Pittino, Daniel & Tell, Fredrik, 2023. "Boundary objects, knowledge integration, and innovation management: A systematic review of the literature," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    7. Claudio Biscaro & Anna Comacchio, 2018. "Knowledge Creation Across Worldviews: How Metaphors Impact and Orient Group Creativity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 289(1), pages 58-79, February.
    8. Paul M. Leonardi & Diane E. Bailey & Casey S. Pierce, 2019. "The Coevolution of Objects and Boundaries over Time: Materiality, Affordances, and Boundary Salience," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 665-686, June.
    9. Ralf Abraham & Stephan Aier & Robert Winter, 2015. "Crossing the Line: Overcoming Knowledge Boundaries in Enterprise Transformation," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 57(1), pages 3-13, February.
    10. Pier Vittorio Mannucci, 2017. "Drawing Snow White and Animating Buzz Lightyear: Technological Toolkit Characteristics and Creativity in Cross-Disciplinary Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 711-728, August.
    11. Marco Tortoriello & Ray Reagans & Bill McEvily, 2012. "Bridging the Knowledge Gap: The Influence of Strong Ties, Network Cohesion, and Network Range on the Transfer of Knowledge Between Organizational Units," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 1024-1039, August.
    12. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    13. Maggie Chuoyan Dong & Yulin Fang & Detmar W. Straub, 2017. "The Impact of Institutional Distance on the Joint Performance of Collaborating Firms: The Role of Adaptive Interorganizational Systems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 309-331, June.
    14. Anna Jonsson & Maria Grafström & Mikael Klintman, 2022. "Unboxing knowledge in collaboration between academia and society: A story about conceptions and epistemic uncertainty [De-essentializing the Knowledge Intensive Firm: Reflections on Skeptical Resea," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 583-597.
    15. Siw M. Fosstenløkken, 2019. "The Role Of Plans In The Formation Of A New Innovation Practice: An Innovation Object Perspective," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(04), pages 1-23, May.
    16. Pedersen, Torben & Soda, Giuseppe & Stea, Diego, 2019. "Globally networked: Intraorganizational boundary spanning in the global organization," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 169-180.
    17. Luciana D’Adderio, 2014. "The Replication Dilemma Unravelled: How Organizations Enact Multiple Goals in Routine Transfer," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1325-1350, October.
    18. Matt Beane & Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2015. "What Difference Does a Robot Make? The Material Enactment of Distributed Coordination," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1553-1573, December.
    19. Deborah Dougherty & Danielle D. Dunne, 2011. "Organizing Ecologies of Complex Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1214-1223, October.
    20. Hilda Bø Lyng & Eric Christian Brun, 2018. "Knowledge Transition: A Conceptual Model of Knowledge Transfer for Cross-Industry Innovation," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(05), pages 1-23, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:11:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s13412-020-00585-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.