Table of Links
3. Theoretical Lenses
4. Applying the Theoretical Lenses and 4.1 Handoff Triggers: New tech, new threats, new hype
4.2. Handoff Components: Shifting experts, techniques, and data
4.3. Handoff Modes: Abstraction and constrained expertise
5. Uncovering the Stakes of the Handoff
5.1. Confidentiality is the tip of the iceberg
6.2 Lesson 2: Beware objects without experts
6.3 Lesson 3: Transparency and participation should center values and policy
8. Research Ethics and Social Impact
Acknowledgments and References
3.2 Boundary objects
Star and Griesemer introduce the concept of boundary objects as arrangements that allow groups to work together without consensus [116]. Star theorizes boundary objects as having three important characteristics: (1) interpretive flexibility, (2) arising from information needs that are (3) weakly structured in common use but strongly structured in local contexts [115]. Past work on boundary objects in organizations has, for instance, shown that these intermediate arrangements can serve as important tools for learning and communication across diverse stakeholders for difficult or heterogeneous domains.
Past work demonstrates that the benefit of boundary objects also depends on their design, which can highlight gaps in understanding and values across groups or failures to serve different stakeholder needs [23]. Further, the role of expertise is crucial: the design and use of boundary objects unintentionally (and intentionally) shapes stakeholder engagement [72, 105]. Within the handoff model, boundary objects can help us to understand the changing relationships between different actants in a handoff. In particular, we examine how the Bureau shaped participation through the artifacts that it introduced to structure negotiations. By attending to these sites of negotiation within the Census Bureau’s adoption of DP, our goal is to illuminate how differences in values and expertise affect sociotechnical handoffs with consequences for participation, trust and accountability.
Authors:
(1) AMINA A. ABDU, University of Michigan, USA;
(2) LAUREN M. CHAMBERS, University of California, Berkeley, USA;
(3) DEIRDRE K. MULLIGAN, University of California, Berkeley, USA;
(4) ABIGAIL Z. JACOBS, University of Michigan, USA.
This paper is
