| Popis: |
Purpose Extant literature tends to consider knowledge boundaries as a necessary property of interdisciplinary work. Knowledge boundaries are, thus, reified and treated as something to be traversed, transcended or otherwise negotiated. There is, however, very little work that closely examines the process of emergence of boundaries. The purpose of this paper is to critically consider the emergence, stabilization and dissolution of knowledge boundaries among experts during the design stage of a building project to understand whether knowledge boundaries are as delineated and predictable as the literature makes them out to be. Design/methodology/approach A process-based, ethnographic study of a construction project is used. Building on a large data set collected over 13 months of research, this paper closely examines collaborative work around one specific issue during design development work that tripped up collaboration of the multidisciplinary and inter-organizational design team. Findings Knowledge boundaries do not exist based on differences of substance among groups (e.g. being an engineer vs being an architect) but rather that they are a function of divergent constellations of interests, work tools and practical concerns. While holding binding powers, they evolve in the face of alignments and misalignments, agreements and conflicts. As interests shift, concerns unfold and tools are dropped or used; boundaries emerge or dissolve. Originality/value A processual view of knowledge boundaries is advanced by demonstrating how they evolve in face of convergent (or divergent) work tools, practical concerns and interests. Existing research tends to equate knowledge boundaries with occupational/professional differences directly, but this paper demonstrates that work across expertise domains does not generate boundaries by itself. Resulting theoretical contributions are twofold: first, the current understanding of knowledge boundaries is refined by explaining how and why they emerge and dissolve across and within specialist knowledge domains, and second, the role of power and politics in this process is empirically foregrounded, highlighting how constellations of interests can lead to dynamic alliances or divisions. |
