SCOS 2012
Transforming Knowledge Into Usefulness Nina Fowler
Uppsala University
Introduction
With ever-‐increasing energy costs, international pressure for the reduction of carbon emissions and the supply of existing fossil fuels looking increasingly unstable, research into renewable energy technologies has grown from a garden shed hobby project to a European Commission supported research area
(European Commission, 2012), incorporating policy makers, university and industry. Of particular interest due to its abundance and non-‐invasive nature, ocean energy is now seen as a viable option in the energy supply mix of the future (European Commission, 2012).
This paper is a continuation of previous research efforts into the
commercialisation of academic knowledge focusing on two organisations,
specifically Oceanic Institute and the Division of Electricity at Uppsala University.
The Wave Energy Converter (WEC) is one such renewable energy technology that has been developed at Uppsala University at the border of academia and industry for the past decade. Throughout the development a core team of
research engineers at the university has been complimented by a steady influx of new academic researchers and industry located employees, some sourced from the university, at a spin-‐off company.
The researchers, drawing upon their understanding of various wave climates, applying for funding, conducting experiments and designing WECs and
supporting systems, are uniquely placed within a large and complex network. As such they are able to utilise this system, and their role within it, to achieve their goals: to produce knowledge and transform it into commercial products and activity.
As part of these goals they must translate their knowledge across the academia-‐
industry border and ensure the continuation of their research by transferring the knowledge to the new researchers within the university. This is achieved partly through engineers translating their scientific knowledge into the WECs as they are designed, committing it to paper in internal reports and disseminating it through the research community by conference participation and journal articles, as well as by demonstrating to and assisting less experienced researchers and commercially located partners. As the researchers’ practice translating this knowledge it develops as a competency, acknowledged by other actors in the network such as commercial partners. By understanding how this translation of knowledge changes and develops, affects the project and the researchers involved as the project progresses, we can begin to describe the commercialisation process.
This initial study tells the story of the technology in this phase of
commercialisation through the illustrations of the subjective experiences of the organisation, artefacts and self throughout the life of the project created by the researchers at the university. Centrally, the researchers sketch representations of their perceived roles and the position of their knowledge within the project.
Presented with the task of drawing the project at three crucial points – the time the individual joined the project, the present state and the future – the
researchers depict their knowledge as a part of a network, varied in size and scope, expanding and diversifying in the future. The study will be repeated in the future to follow the project as it unfolds in this commercialisation phase.
Research Motivation
The production of localized knowledge (Knorr-‐Cetina, 1999) teaches us firstly that knowledge is a situational creation and secondly reiterates that social worlds (Bucher and Strauss, 1961, Glaser, 1964) exist. The cross fertilization of these understandings has lead to work by Latour on the stabilization of
knowledge (1987), by Star and Giesemer (1989) on boundary objects and subsequently to “standardized packages (Fujimura, 1992).
Derived in part from Callon and Latour’s “interessement” (2002) boundary objects problematize the tension in science and knowledge creation across interest boundaries (Star and Giesemer, 1989). The museum example discusses the negotiations and agreements to be made surrounding the acquisition of artifacts, in this case physical manifestations of current or future knowledge, but the boundary object need not be physical to be classed as such. Fujimura (1992) developed “standardized packages”, a more robust change of practices for actors working across social worlds (Guston, 2001), as an alternative to boundary objects which she claimed disadvantageous for the development of knowledge due to their adaptability. Standardized packages however are more than an object with which to traverse boundaries; they are a set of boundary objects combined with standardized methods, which work together to restrict modification and refine their own definitions. In her example, Fujimura
describes a standardized package in scientific research into cancer development as genes, cancer and cancer genes (the objects) and DNA technologies, probes and sequence information (the methods). Neither boundary objects, though they imply adaptability, nor standardized packages, explain how knowledge moves between these social worlds and what processes it undergoes as it moves from inception to a commercialized product. In this paper I aim to explore how knowledge translation for technology commercialization processes could be understood in terms of the organization properties of so called boundary objects and standardized packages.
So why explore this through visual media? Harper (1988) describes the origins of visual research methods in conjunction with anthropology, discussing the democratization and mass-‐distribution of a new kind of knowledge through photography in European research. Prior to this, the sociologists such as Karl Marx produced work based on descriptions and statistics and left the reader to
form his own mental images of the subjects. This is an important part of the equation: words can describe but they are only ever imperfect mental short cuts to enable communication, and are linguistically and culturally subjective
(Urciuoli, 1995). The problems occurring through the difference in language never mean so much as when an individual from one culture must describe something, perhaps abstract in nature, to individuals from another (Bourque, 1971).
Objects and acts are created with the purpose of communicating something to the observer, according to Ruby (2005). He also asserts that culture is
manifested in visual symbols embedded in gestures, ceremonies and artifacts, supported by several studies including for example a decade-‐long photographic documentation of the American Depression on the 1930’s, depicting families performing such patriotic rituals as Thanksgiving, even with empty tables (Harper, 1988). The metaphor of the visual in anthropology is discussed by MacDougall (1997), who describes the photographs of “primitives” displaying the use of feathers, hair and bones in personal adornment as symbolic indicators of their close relationship with the natural world. Modern academic
anthropology employs a wide range of sources, such as:
“…historical photographs, news photography, sports events, comic books, postcards, stereographs, body decoration, indigenous painting, 'tourist art', home movies, family snapshots, itinerant theatre, vernacular architecture, children's drawings, political regalia, court ceremony, gesture and facial expression, advertising, costume and personal adornment, industrial design, and so on.” (MacDougall, 1997)
So why ask academic researchers to draw their work rather than to photograph or film it, as modern visual sociologists (Hockey and Collinson, 2006, Pink, 2008) do? Margolis (1998) described how photographs “emphasize science,
engineering, system and sequence”, but that to understand social divisions he had to talk to the labourers, using words to explain their understanding of their role changes. Perhaps with paper and pen they could have illustrated their social reality. Henderson (1991) describes the way engineers use technical drawings as boundary objects to act as “social glue” between the different groups in the design process. By illustrating their interpretation of the activities taking place, the researchers have the opportunity to describe, without the potential
misunderstandings of language (across both the Swedish-‐English and Engineering-‐Sociology social worlds), the movement of knowledge, the
communities who use this knowledge and the processes it undergoes to facilitate the commercialization process.
Methodology
Research to date has consisted of observations of meetings, participating in discussions, formal interviews and informal conversations. The departure into visual research methods is an attempt to draw information from the participants in a way that stimulates them to consider their environment in a manner to
which they are not accustomed. This has two main motivations; the first is that by deviating from the narrative or organisational voice in which the participants normally engage with each other and myself they may reveal details that are better suited to visual research methods such as complex relationships, knowledge movement, etc. Secondly, by encouraging the description of a
particular object or arrangement in a different manner it enables a rough form of triangulation of existing data.
Participants were approached with a brief description of the project through the group’s internal e-‐mail, followed with face-‐to-‐face requests for participation. Of the full research group a number were off-‐site or on parental leave, a number declined and a few agreed to take part but found it difficult to arrange to meet.
Those taking part included early stage PhD candidates, a post-‐doctoral researcher and the research leader.
Presented with an A2 flip pad and a set of pens participants were asked to
illustrate the project from their understanding at three points in time: when they joined the project, their current observations and the future they imagined could happen. Each interview was videotaped and participants were prompted to explain or expand upon their drawings. The empirical data presented here is sourced only from these interviews.
Empirical data
Drawings
The drawings provided by the researchers were rich in detail, although artistically left much to be desired. Although a much fuller story exists for the project so far, it is important that the drawings are not obscured by the stories told previously. As such, it would be beneficial for the reader initially to observe and attempt to understand the resultant illustrations without the supplementary data gathered in verbal form during the
interviews.
One of the first sketches (fig. 1) shows the knowledge almost literally inside someone’s brain.
The hemispheres are labeled
“ABB”, indicating that the brain and its contents belonged to
Figure 1: Participant 2, Professor, 2012
something else. The next image in the same sketch shows movement, and then the brain becomes a head with small, unlabeled, nodes of information. The head has a face with a small smile, which could suggest that it is now human,
independent rather than owned. The final face shows a large smile as it looks over a box labeled “Department” containing six people.
Figure 2, Participant 3, Post-‐doctoral researcher, 2012
Figure 2 depicts an idea in a thought bubble above an individual’s head, then being shared with three other figures. An eye is drawn in front of these figures, suggesting looking forwards. An arrow points to a currency sign with a question mark, indicating that the people considered how they should fund this activity, drawn in simple form on the right. The tower with a string and a disc is a very simplified representation of the wave energy converter, showing the foundation, the cylinder, cone, rope and buoy on the water. Question marks surround it, perhaps showing a lack of knowledge. A strong arrow points to further questions marks and a number of the same devices in a building with a wagon heading into it, and then on a boat. A large circle around these sketches is labeled “University”
and a smaller circle on the edge is labeled “Company”.
Figure 3: Participant 1, PhD student 2012
At the center of figure 3 there is a roughly circular shape, representative of a buoy. Around this there are figures reading from books, perhaps illustrative of knowledge. Each book has one slightly larger figure marked in black and three smaller figures marked in green. Each sub-‐group has an arrow directly into the middle of the buoy.
Figure 4, Participant 1, PhD student 2012
Two half-‐buildings are draw in figure 4, with a waving figure in front of each in the corresponding colour, indicating a difference between the two. Each building is labeled, one as UU and the other as OI. The figure in the middle holds his arms out to the sides.
Figure 5, Participant 4, PhD student, 2012
Here a messy scrawl divides “facilities” and “research, broken buoy?”, but the line was original drawn straight. This could mean that the distinction is unclear even to the researcher who drew this diagram. Arrows cross between the two
main areas, some straight across and others curling back on themselves after a brief trip into the opposite area. They could be representative of knowledge, resources or equipment.
Figure 6, Participant 2, Professor, 2012
Figure 6 shows a mass of lines on the left and an arrow leading to a small bundle on the right.
Figure 7, Participant 3, Post-‐doctoral researcher, 2012
When asked to illustrate the future of the project, one researcher drew figure 7.
Here there are several circles enclosing similar words. Words describing activities link these larger circles together and arrows fit between them.
Interviews and background
Past
In 2001 ABB signed a document granting one of their program managers the rights and freedom to develop his ideas outside of the organisation. After considering various options he chose Uppsala University with its relative
strength in mathematical modelling as the new base for his activities, taking with him a number of ABB employees. Initially with only six staff the Department for Electricity, later growing into the Division of Electricity, focused on a few key areas including wind power, computer systems and wave power. After a six month rest period stipulated by ABB the group established an external company by the name of Energy Futures and a daughter company, Oceanic Institute, in 2001 and by 2002 the wave project had been given the first of many academic research grants (Participant 2, Professor, 2012).
The perceived future activity of the organisations was sketched by one of the researchers when asked to describe what the project looked like when he first joined. The project was planned around a single idea – to provide a cost-‐effective wave energy conversion system. The idea generated lots of questions that were formulated into research projects at the university, and the future manufacture and deployment systems were imagined. The structure of the overall project was already determined to contain a joint university-‐ spin-‐off company (Participant 3, Post-‐doctoral researcher, 2012), however the boundaries of the activities were not entirely clear.
Initially the research focused on determining the design framework. Based on his experience of cabling the project leader decided that any connection to the grid must be placed on the ocean floor, limiting the opportunities for damage
(Participant 2, Professor, 2012). With the same thoughts regarding damage limitation he also placed any expensive or delicate equipment on the sea bed.
Since the energy of the wave is located at the surface there had to be a relatively cheap and hardwearing device that could float and transfer the wave energy to the electricity converter.
At this point the people in the research project were highly competent in the required electronic systems and so efforts were focused on the areas in which the team had weaknesses;
construction of the WEC body and production methods.
The wave energy conversion technology was transformed from an idea to a series of laboratory simulations and wave tank tests before being combined in
Figure 8, Participant 2, Professor, 2012
the first of a number of prototypes. The first deployment at Lysekil was completed in early Spring 2006.
The project continued to recruit in both the academic research department and at Oceanic Institute, and individuals moved between the two organisations at various points, for example upon completion of a Masters degree. Although ABB had lost a number of employees to this new project they benefited from a supply of new, highly skilled employees moving from the University (Participant 2, Professor, 2012). Despite the high number of industry experienced individuals joining the research project the organisation took a rather flat structure rather than a clear hierarchy (Participant 4, PhD student, 2012). Individuals joining the project more recently described their initial perception of the research group as like a round table, referring to a buoy as the imaginary focal point. They saw a collection of knowledge to which everybody in the project contributed and had access.
Present
Once researchers became more familiar with the way the organisation worked it was described a little differently. Where once knowledge was a collective
singular object, now it was a distributed set of information and experiences only brought into a collective when a decision needed to be made. Important to the understanding of the organisational structure is the realisation that although individuals can move between the loosely arranged sub-‐groups to ask about the knowledge, since each set of knowledge is individually researched any
understanding by another researcher not familiar with the research area is superficial at best (Participant 1, PhD student 2012).
The understanding described here of how knowledge is shared between sub-‐
groups within the academic research group goes some way to explaining the relationship between the two organisations in the project. One researcher described Oceanic Institute as being a very thin organisation; they have a set of competencies in marketing and little else (Participant 2, Professor, 2012).
Academic researchers describe how knowledge is created at the university and provided to Ocean Institute in a neatly packaged answer to a query, however the scientific reasoning and research behind the summarised knowledge is rarely transported across the organisational boundary.
With a more experienced understanding and privileged viewpoint of the project, researchers began to describe the many actors involved across the industry-‐
academia border, illustrating relationships between financing partners, students, EU initiatives and individual researchers (Participant 3, Post-‐doctoral
researcher, 2012). Relationships and boundaries were illustrated as less clear, marked last on the page rather than as initial definitions of the activities taking place.
One reoccurring image was that of a broaching character, an individual who could easily traverse the industry-‐academia boundary and guide the activities of Oceanic Institute away from the mistakes they are making due to these
summarised knowledge packages and towards more profitable activities (Participant 2, Professor, 2012). Alternatively this character was illustrated as belonging to both organisations, standing still and acting as a bridge rather than a moving individual. When asked to describe this character two individuals involved with the project were named, although the research leader stressed that it was not necessary to have the same person playing this role on a permanent basis. One named individual has acted in this space between the organisations for some time, however lately he has moved further into his industry-‐based role at the expense of his academic role. Another has more recently been occupying this space, advising Oceanic Institute of risks with pursuing lines of action, which are based on misinterpretation of the packaged knowledge (Participant 2, Professor, 2012).
Increasingly the research motivation is to determine the optimum design for an economically viable wave energy converter. The current prototypes provide around five times the energy output for three fifths of the cost by using less material and a more efficient design (Participant 2, Professor, 2012).
Future
There are several advantages to the project being developed at Uppsala and in the Swedish sea. One of these is the economic awareness of the engineering researchers; a trait the research leader considers as rare. With the department founded by individuals who themselves originated from industry though it can hardly be a surprise that researchers are aware of the economic potential of their work. The mobility of individuals between academia and Oceanic Institute could also be a contributing factor. The second advantage is technological in nature. The calm sea states surrounding Lysekil and other test sites necessitated the development of an energy conversion technology which could not only withstand extreme conditions; ice and high waves for example, but that could convert energy from relatively calm sea states. Other wave energy projects have focused on converting energy from much greater wave amplitudes and so have not put effort into making waves with less energy a commercially viable
operating environment. As such, the Oceanic Institute is well placed to serve markets their competitors have considered worthless. This market encompasses India, Arabia, Japan, the Baltic countries and islands around the equator; areas that currently rely on fossil fuels and will soon need a price comparable energy solution (Participant 2, Professor, 2012).
When asked to describe the future of the project, the researchers presented some very different expectations. One researcher described how knowledge might be distributed amongst the academic researchers in a more organised, hierarchical fashion, with clear lines of responsibility.
Another hoped for a more open knowledge sharing, with Oceanic Institute actively participating in the round table discussions. Each party should bring their own knowledge such as technical from the university and market knowledge from Oceanic Institute. This was partly motivated by her wish to
understand how industry works; unlike many others in the academic research group she has neither worked in industry prior to beginning her PhD nor crossed the academia-‐industry border by working for Oceanic Institute (Participant 1, PhD student 2012).
Others were keen for the border between Oceanic Institute and the research department to be clarified and the two organisations distanced further. One explained that she felt there was too much ambiguity in who was responsible for work, with some tasks being invoiced and others performed for free. With no accountability she felt that it was difficult for those in the research project to focus on the type of work that warranted the awarding of a PhD (Participant 4, PhD student, 2012). Another felt that for a variety of reasons the two
organisations should be further apart. In particular he felt that because of his role between the two he was working harder than he could maintain for a long time, and he would prefer to exist mostly within the academic environment and limit his commercial interests in the technology (Participant 2, Professor, 2012).
With a much broader approach, one researcher explained how he saw the growth of both the industrial and the academic activities, expanding the project not only across organisational boundaries but also across countries. The central placement of the utility in the illustration (fig. 7) perhaps reflects the recent contact with a utility company presently involved in the project (Participant 3, Post-‐doctoral researcher, 2012), who themselves envision an academic research centre being created outside of Sweden as part of their own strategy.
Discussion
In this case it appears that knowledge is present in a number of forms, and is transferred, disseminated, translated and packaged into the appropriate form.
The case suggests two clear distinctions the academic researchers make between the types of knowledge they encounter and use. The first is engineering and technical in nature, and the primary example is the knowledge of the research leader as he leaves industry. With an idea based on his career knowledge, the research leader is aware that ABB are not interested in pursuing the technology and that he lacks certain technical knowledge, particularly with regard to
mathematical modelling. Selecting an actor, Uppsala University, for his research centre was a decision based on the need for the project to have these
competencies.
The second type of knowledge apparent in this case is that of commercial or market knowledge. By maintaining close linkages between the university and the spin-‐off company, the academic researchers are not only conducting research but performing activities through which they develop commercial awareness.
They are simultaneously learning by doing in both the technical and the commercial fields. With a research leader who transferred from industry to academia it can hardly be a surprise that his students have the opportunity to develop in both areas through their work. As a boundary object then knowledge is adapted, sometimes unsuccessfully, to the social world to which it is
translated. It also acts as a negotiation chip in the relationship, with different types of knowledge being exchanged for the desired knowledge.
The goal of the project has from the beginning been to create a viable energy converter for the power market, and as such Oceanic Institute was set up to establish an industrial connection. Individuals from ABB followed the research leader into the project, some directly into the university and others, such as those with strong marketing skills and experience, settled into Oceanic Institute.
Beyond this initial planning the entire structure of the project and activities was not shared with the academic researchers, other than to say that there would be a joint project resulting in the deployment of wave energy converters.
Initial designs of the WEC and associated systems were based on the technological knowledge of the research leader, demonstrating knowledge translation directly into the artefact. From here research efforts were focused on known weaknesses, suggesting a strategic decision making process. The project followed what is now a typical ocean energy technology development path;
through laboratory simulations, scale tests in a wave tank and full-‐size
prototypes in the sea. From a research perspective this is clearly an appropriate method of development, at least in terms of what can be funded: laboratory simulations are far cheaper than full-‐scale sea deployments for example.
From an organisational structure view there are some curious points to consider.
Although from a typically hierarchical industrial company, the research leader chose instead to create a flat organisation with a single strong head, a structure later referred to by one of his PhD students as a little like coming together around the fabled round table. Aside from her assertion that the buoy was the round table in this scenario, the analogy is surprisingly reflective of the problems reported with such an arrangement. Researchers report a lack of communication when they are not drawn together around a decision to be made and as a result work and previously erroneous research ideas have often been repeated, wasting resources.
So to return to the question of how knowledge translation for technology commercialization processes could be understood in terms of the organization properties of so called boundary objects and standardized packages. Looking at the wave project there are three distinct classifications to be made: the
knowledge, the artefacts, and the ideal.
Knowledge
One of the researchers described how she moved between sub-‐groups in the university, asking questions to gain the information she needed for her own research. Taking small parts of knowledge here and there, she gathered incomplete and simplified data, just enough to continue her own work.
Knowledge could then be said to be partially transferred or disseminated throughout the researchers, but never fully so. This partial knowledge transfer also occurred between the university and Oceanic Institute, with Oceanic
Institute taking neatly packaged research results and applying it to their own technology development, partly due to a limitation in technical competency;
Oceanic Institute just did not have the same depth of knowledge as the academic researchers, being composed of Masters students and individuals with industry experience in marketing. This would not be such a problem if Oceanic Institute had the necessary competencies to understand the knowledge in full, but due to having limited information it was difficult for Oceanic Institute to independently develop the technology for the market, and lately limited packages (not to be confused with standardized packages) of knowledge have resulted in mistakes being made by Oceanic Institute. To solve this problem an individual was placed to bridge the two organisations and enable transfer and translation of
knowledge. This individual could be anybody with the required technical knowledge and seniority, and varies depending on the issues to be addressed.
This packaging of knowledge raises some questions. Firstly, if knowledge is produced by one organisation and summarised into a form ready for industrial application, but missing the detailed scientific understanding, could it be called a boundary object? Once in the boundary-‐crossing form the knowledge is no longer used by the academic researchers and in fact requires extra knowledge to be added should problems arise.
Artefact
In the beginning of the project, researchers imagined the wave energy
converters as an artefact, but were not entirely sure how they could traverse the industry-‐academia border and in what form they might do this. The artefacts are often moved between Uppsala University and Oceanic Institute. One researcher talked of an example where damaged buoys belonging to Uppsala University were repaired at facilities owned by Oceanic Institute by industry workers. As boundary objects they functioned as bargaining power, as sometimes money is exchanged for repair services and sometimes it is not. In another example, five wave energy converters were produced according to Uppsala University designs by Oceanic Institute, and were funded by an outside partner. They crossed from industry to academia and were translated from industrial products to research tools, related to entirely differently by the researchers and the industrial workers.
Idea
The final part, the idea, is the most abstract that could be viewed as a boundary object. It is not a physical object, nor academic knowledge. Instead, it is the imagined future of the project and thus perhaps the most susceptible to the risks of being a boundary object: to be changed and made untenable to another social world. Figure 6 is perhaps the clearest illustration of the idea in boundary object and standardized package form. Making the assumption that utility companies only require the understanding to use the technology and the foreign
universities intend to build on the knowledge, it could be said that the idea is a
boundary object when considering the relationship between the universities and the utility companies, and a standardized package when looking at the
relationship between the universities, where actors are from different
backgrounds but intend to work across organisational boundaries to develop the technology. Then there is the somewhat more political perspective where, for example, it might be seen that the idea of the wave energy converter and its benefits acts as a boundary object between geographic regions, used in negotiations and discussions surrounding for example climate policy.
Conclusion
Here we could find evidence of knowledge translation from industry to an idea, to Uppsala University in the mind of the research leader before being
disseminated for further knowledge creation by academics and a spin-‐off company. Finally, knowledge continues to transfer between the university and Oceanic Institute in both directions and in a variety of forms, either through learning by doing or through packages of information supported by a technical expert.
Based on the definitions of boundary objects and standardized packages it would appear that this case not only demonstrates their existence, but also to some extent describes their intentional creation. In the “past” drawings there are signs of boundary objects being planned, with many questions and uncertainties surrounding their nature and boundaries across which they should span. The foundation of knowledge as the boundary object is created within the academic research group, with researchers specialising in their own knowledge areas. As part of the research process there is an element of collaboration between research specialities and knowledge is shared between them. The knowledge shared through is in a condensed form, as the depth of knowledge required by the knowledge-‐acquiring researcher to perform their research is far less than that of the original knowledge creator. The same mechanism takes place subsequently across the industry-‐academia border, as engineers at Oceanic Institute do not require the same depth of knowledge as the knowledge creators at Uppsala University to build the technology to perform within the same
environment. When Oceanic Institute is required to alter the technology, either for a change in operating environment or in attempts to create a cheaper alternative, they do not have the requisite depth of knowledge to make such adjustments.
This leads on to the individual spanning the industry-‐academia border to try the problems resulting from this knowledge deficit. Then the question presents itself: can a person be a boundary object or standardized package? Certainly they might meet some of the criteria mentioned earlier, but without further study it would be speculative guesswork to try to say.
To return to the issue of boundary object and standardized packages, the case not only presents an argument for the creation of both, but potentially for the intentional creation of both for specific boundaries; industry-‐academia,
academic-‐academic, research group-‐ finance sources, national, etc. This potential design of a boundary object or standardized package therefore implies another type of work, an editing of the complete set of knowledge, artefacts and ideas to suit the individual relationship. This could be an interesting line of enquiry to follow with organisational relationship research, for example the combination of boundary objects and standardized packages with Industrial Marketing and Purchasing network theory could offer some useful insights into both. It could be interesting to look at how boundary objects and standardized packages are treated when multiple relationships are to be considered, such as between ABB, Uppsala University, a major utility company and a foreign university, who are all working with the same set of boundary objects and standardized packages.
To answer this question it could be useful to continue asking key actors to try to describe their understanding of the knowledge utilised within the relationships, exploring the area in both a verbal and visual manner. To support research into this area it could also be valuable to try to assess how the different actors
represent the knowledge in their dealings with each other through media such as funding applications and press releases, and so build up a picture of the
boundary objects and standardized packages from a multitude of viewpoints.
Overall, it seems that exploring the initial research question through visual means was a valuable experience. Participants commented that they were thinking of their work in a different way, and reported being interested in any results arising from their drawings. There were also limitations with this approach, part of which resulted from asking the researchers to illustrate their past understanding of the project. Several seemed to find this difficult to do, explaining that they had since come to know the project was different to their initial perceptions and that they were not sure they were providing an accurate interpretation of their own past viewpoints. In addition they found it difficult to illustrate what they meant literally, and so relied on metaphors (such as the image of the buoy as the round table) and verbal cues, so from a purely visual research methods approach this study was not successful. In conjunction with verbal data though the interviews and drawings provided a depth of information not previously conveyed during verbal interviews and meetings.
References
Akrich, M., Callon, M. & Latour, B., (2002). The key to success in innovation part I:
the art of interessement. International Journal of Innovation Management Vol. 6, No. 2 (June 2002) pp. 187–206
Bourque, L. (1971). Language, Society and Subjective Experience, Sociometry, Vol.
34, No. 1 (Mar., 1971), pp. 1-‐21.
Bucher, R. (1961). Professions in process: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 325-‐334.
European Commission, 2012, EU Support for Ocean Energy, (Online) Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/eu/research/ocean/support/index_en.ht m, Accessed [Accessed July 6th 2012].
European Commission, 2012, Ocean Energy, (Online) Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/eu/research/ocean/index_en.htm Accessed [Accessed July 6th 2012].
Fujimura, J. (1992) Crafting science: Standardized packages, boundary objects, and "translation." In Science As Culture And Practice, edited by Andrew Pickering, 168-‐211. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1964). Awareness Contexts and Social Interaction.
American Sociological Review, 29(5), 669–679.
Guston, D. (2001). From Boundary Objects to Boundary Organizations, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 399-‐408.
Harper, D. (1988). Visual sociology: Expanding sociological vision. The American Sociologist, 19(1), 54–70.
Henderson, K. (1991). Flexible Sketches and Inflexible Data Bases: Visual Communication, Conscription Devices, and Boundary Objects in Design Engineering. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16(4), 448–473.
Hockey, J., Collinson, J. A., (2006). Seeing the way: visual sociology and the distance runner's perspective, Visual Studies -‐ Volume 21, Issue 1
Latour, B., (1987) Science In Action: How To Follow Scientists And Engineers Through Society, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press
MacDougall, D. (1997). The visual in anthropology. In: Banks, M., 1997, Rethinking visual anthropology, London, pp.276-‐295
Margolis, E. (1998), Picturing labor: A visual ethnography of the coal mine labor process 1 -‐ Visual Sociology -‐ Volume 13, Issue 2.
Pink, S. (2008). Mobilising Visual Ethnography: Making Routes, Making Place and Making Images. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(3).
Ruby, J. (2005) The last 20 years of visual anthropology – a critical review, Visual Studies, Volume 20, Issue 2
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology,translations“ and
boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley”s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-‐39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.
Urciuoli, B. (1995). Language and Borders. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 525–546.
Interviews
Castellucci, V., 2012, Interviewed by Nina Fowler, video, Uppsala, 29th May 2012
Leijon, M., 2012, Interviewed by Nina Fowler, video, Uppsala, 31st May 2012
Rahm, M., 2012, Interviewed by Nina Fowler, video, Uppsala, 20th June 2012
Sjökvist, L., 2012, Interviewed by Nina Fowler, video, Uppsala, 28st May 2012
