Nathues Et Al 2024 Shape Shifting How Boundary Objects Affect Meaning Making Across Visual Verbal and Embodied Modes

1236111
research-article2024
HUM0010.1177/00187267241236111Human RelationsNathues et al.
human relations
human relations
1–33
Shape-shifting: How boundary © The Author(s) 2024
objects affect meaning-making Article reuse guidelines:

across visual, verbal, and embodied sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267241236111
DOI: 10.1177/00187267241236111
modes journals.sagepub.com/home/hum
Ellen Nathues
University of Twente, the Netherlands
Mark van Vuuren

Maaike D Endedijk
Matthias Wenzel
Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Germany
Abstract
Boundary objects help collaborators create shared meaning and coordinate their work
across differences. Acknowledging the complex dynamics of such processes, we propose
a multimodal alternative to studies’ traditionally static view of boundary objects and
ask: How do boundary objects “shape-shift”? How do they emerge in varying forms
across visual, verbal, and embodied modes, and in what ways does this “shape-shifting”
affect meaning-making? Adopting a “strong” multimodal lens, we show how boundary
objects expand in form as collaborative work proceeds through shifting shapes both
across and within modes. We also show how they contract over time, reemerging
exclusively in some and not other shapes, often in simplified forms. These dynamics
both enable and constrain meaning-making. Expanding shapes of the boundary object
allow collaborators to develop rich shared understandings. Contracting shapes, in turn,
Corresponding author:
Ellen Nathues, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, Enschede, 7500AE, the Netherlands.
Email: e.nathues@utwente.nl
2 Human Relations 00(0)
condense meaning-making into efficient communication among those familiarized with

the object, yet obscure meaning-making for newcomers who cannot make sense of its
contracted shapes. Our study sheds new light on boundary objects’ multimodal nature
and demonstrates how objects’ shifting shapes affect meaning-making. More generally,
we offer a rich empirical account of how modes enmesh in practice, unveiling their
processual and inseparable complexion.
Keywords
boundary objects, collaboration, meaning-making, multimodality, relationality, visual
artifacts, ventriloquism
From cross-functional projects to multidisciplinary groups to interorganizational teams,

more and more collaborative work constellations can nowadays be found in the organiza-
tional landscape (Majchrzak et al., 2015). Actors from different professions, organiza-
tions, or industries team up to reap the benefits of a richer pool of resources, skills, and
insights (Akkerman and Bakker, 2011). However, these collaborative work constellations
also confront actors with new challenges (Nathues et al., 2023). Meaning-making—here
defined as creating shared understandings of issues at stake across collaborators’ differ-
ences in perspectives, terminologies, and experiences—is one of the most intricate hur-
dles and most vital success factors of collaborative work (Bechky, 2003a; Huxham and
Vangen, 2004; Jørgensen et al., 2012). Without shared understandings that ground and
guide a group’s collaborative endeavors, progressing and thriving together is hardly pos-
sible. Indeed, “[t]o form a group with members truly working together towards genuinely
shared goals, a team calls for a substantial degree of shared meanings” (Einola and
Alvesson, 2019: 1896).
Previous work suggests that “boundary objects” may serve as crucial aids and reme-
dies for meaning-making in collaborative work (Bechky, 2003b), for example in the
form of project management software (Barrett and Oborn, 2010), strategy tools (Spee
and Jarzabkowksi, 2009), or flowcharts (Swan et al., 2007). As artifacts representing
knowledge in ways understandable across different viewpoints, they help collaborators
produce shared understandings (Star and Griesemer, 1989). In doing so, boundary objects
are central means for collaborators to proceed with their joint work even when faced with
divergent and possibly colliding ways of communicating and interpreting.
Collaborative work’s dynamic nature and recent shifts in understanding boundaries as
processual and continually renegotiated (e.g., Comeau-Vallée and Langley, 2019; Quick and
Feldman, 2014) exhort us to “move beyond a conception of boundary objects as static
devices” (Langley et al., 2019: 720). A processual take on boundary objects also seems more
sensible when considering meaning-making’s complex and fragile nature (Jørgensen et al.,
2012). Indeed, when the meanings we produce are dynamic and always partly open to vari-
ation (Vásquez et al., 2016), then so might the boundary objects that help produce them.
Yet, in spite of some notable exceptions that have begun to demonstrate boundary objects’
fluid nature (e.g., Doolin and McLeod, 2012; Ewenstein and Whyte, 2009; Gal et al., 2008;
Jornet and Steier, 2015), most studies continue to prioritize objects’ effects on changing
boundaries over exploring boundary objects’ own dynamic nature. More precisely, though
Nathues et al. 3
boundary objects’ functions are known to modify in relation to collaboration stage, setting,
or the people involved (Carlile, 2002), much less is still known about how the boundary
object itself changes form—“shape-shifts”—in order to preserve or extend its functionality.
This is surprising, given that already Star’s (1989) original conception stressed boundary
objects’ fluid and dynamic nature. Thus, rather than assuming that meaning-making only
happens around a static boundary object, one would expect this object to “shape-shift” as
collaborative work progresses. It is also problematic, fostering a tendency of failing to notice
how meaning-making is supported or thwarted through changes in a boundary object’s
shape. For example, could shared understandings still be accomplished when a physical
boundary object becomes just a single phrase or simple gesture?
In this project, we aim to understand better the patterns of meaning-making and bound-
ary objects’ shifting shapes. Building on extant processual takes on boundaries and col-
laborative work (Comeau-Vallée and Langley, 2019; Langley et al., 2019; Quick and
Feldman, 2014), we seek to provide an equally dynamic portrayal of the artifacts that col-
laborators use as they make sense of each other’s differences and their joint work. Drawing
on a “strong” multimodal lens (Zilber, 2018) and mobilizing insights from ethnomethodol-
ogy and conversation analysis (Garfinkel, 1967; Schegloff, 1991; Vygotsky, 1934/1986),
we focus on how boundary objects change form across visual, verbal, and embodied modes
and how these dynamics affect meaning-making. We ask: How do boundary objects shape-
shift in collaborative work, and how do these dynamics influence meaning-making?
We examine these questions through a longitudinal video ethnography conducted in
an interorganizational project team. Based on our analyses, we illuminate two primary
dynamics: expanding and contracting. We show how a boundary object’s shapes expand
into visual, verbal, and embodied modes (e.g., when hand gestures mimic a visually
displayed shape) and broaden within these modes (e.g., as modified visual versions). We
also show how these shapes contract over time, reemerging exclusively in some and not
other modes (e.g., reemerging solely in verbal shapes and no longer in visual form), often
in simplified ways (e.g., a single word). Expanding shapes of the boundary object sup-
port meaning-making: they enable team members to see, think, speak, and move in syn-
chronizing ways, the broadened repertoire of the boundary object’s shapes supporting
their creation of shared understandings. In turn, contracting shapes both support and
thwart meaning-making. On the one hand, they streamline and simultaneously enrich
meaning-making among those familiarized with these shapes, as professionals can rely
on simple but sophisticated communicative references that carry the history of all the
meaning-being-made-before. On the other hand, however, they constrain shared under-
standings when team composition fluctuates. Meaning is obscured for newcomers who
cannot make sense of the object’s contracted shapes, such that a previously powerful
boundary object becomes an obstacle for further collaborative work.
This article extends research on boundary objects by shedding new light on their
shape-shifting dynamics. Our analyses tease out boundary objects’ fluid, multimodal,
and relational nature and reveal the consequentiality of their shifting shapes for how
meaning-making succeeds or falls apart in collaborative work. More generally, this arti-
cle extends the literature on multimodality (Boxenbaum et al., 2018; Knight and Wenzel,
forthcoming; Zilber, 2018) by offering a rich empirical account of how modes intertwine
in practice. Hence, our article highlights modes’ processual and inseparable character
rather than their assumed reification.
Theoretical background
Boundary objects and meaning-making
Boundary objects are meaning-making devices that help collaborators coordinate and accom-
plish work across organizational, disciplinary, or other distinctions (Bechky, 2003b; Star,
2010). Defined as artifacts that “inhabit several intersecting worlds and satisfy the informa-
tional requirements of each of them” (Star and Griesemer, 1989: 393), they represent knowl-
edge in forms understandable across perspectives and constitute helpful tools to articulate and
learn about differences (Akkerman and Bakker, 2011). Because they are “plastic enough to
adapt to local needs [. . .] yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites” (Star
and Griesemer, 1989: 393), boundary objects provide footholds around which shared under-
standings of issues at stake can be created. As such understandings are crucial for productive
collaborative work across differences (e.g., Bechky, 2003a; Einola and Alvesson, 2019;
Jørgensen et al., 2012), boundary objects are central, if not indispensable, features of such
work (Caccamo, 2020). They enhance the capacity of ideas, thoughts, and opinions to trans-
late across varying contexts and viewpoints, providing the shared reference base that groups
need to collaborate productively (Bittner and Leimeister, 2014).
Ever since Star and Griesemer (1989) coined the term “boundary object,” extant litera-
ture has explored a great variety of artifacts as enabling meaning-making. Amongst others,
studied boundary objects include project management software (Barrett and Oborn, 2010),
robot arms (Hsiao et al., 2012), bioreactors (Nicolini et al., 2012), strategy tools (Spee and
Jarzabkowksi, 2009), or metaphors (Koskinen, 2005). Another group of important bound-
ary objects are visual artifacts. For example, Henderson (1991) and Bechky (2003b)
showed how engineering drawings enabled meaning-making between occupational groups,
and others studied how flowcharts or timelines facilitated knowledge-sharing and align-
ment across organizational sections (Carlile, 2002; Swan et al., 2007). Yet, others exam-
ined how architectural sketches made boundaries more and less visible (Comi and Whyte,
2018; Ewenstein and Whyte, 2009) or how PowerPoint slides contributed to coordinating
work and reconciling divergent interpretations (Knight et al., 2018; Nicolini et al., 2012).
Previous work has demonstrated that boundary objects’ usages and usefulness can change
across situations (Levina and Vaast, 2005). For instance, their functions can evolve from
informing to integrating (Ojansivu et al., 2021), or objects can be replaced altogether as
projects mature and artifacts become increasingly futile (Leonardi et al., 2019). Oswick and
Robertson (2009: 190) even caution that boundary objects can constrain meaning-making—
constituting “barricades and mazes” rather than “bridges and anchors”—without, however,
specifying the processes through which such outcomes are produced. Clearly, then, writings
on boundary objects have begun acknowledging these artifacts’ dynamic nature. That said,
authors seem so focused on boundary objects’ changing functions and effects on collabora-
tive work that they tend to leave uninvestigated the varied shapes in which these objects
(re)emerge (see also Ewenstein and Whyte, 2009). For instance, Comi and Vaara’s (2021)
study of an architectural project sheds light on contestations and renegotiations of meaning
through different ways of using a design as a boundary object, not the potentially manifold
forms in which the boundary object itself appeared in the team’s discussions.
So, whereas boundary objects’ functions and effects are reported to be dynamic, much
of the literature continues to sketch relatively static images of the concept itself (Langley
Nathues et al. 5
et al., 2019). Somewhat simplistically, boundary objects are considered to stay within the
confinements of singular shapes. In so doing, research tends to overlook how boundary
objects may change form and migrate into different ways of expressing themselves, such
as by being “embodied, voiced, printed, danced, and named” (Star, 2010: 603). Of course,
some artifacts may take on boundary object functionalities precisely because they sustain
an unchanging and recognizable appearance. Yet, others might do so precisely because
they change form—a point made already in Star’s (1989) original conception and stressed
once more in her more recent work (Star, 2010). For a more complete understanding of
boundary objects, we thus need to consider and better comprehend both dynamics: when
they maintain the same form and when they shape-shift.
The few studies that have started to grapple with boundary objects’ shifting shapes
insightfully confirm their dynamic nature. For example, Gal et al. (2008) studied how 2D
paper drawings and CAD models were replaced by 3D technologies and the implications
of these changes for organizational identities. Similarly, Ewenstein and Whyte (2009)
focused attention on the ongoing accomplishment of boundary objects by reconstructing
changes along visual, physical, and digital versions. Doolin and McLeod (2012), in turn,
conceptualized boundary objects as “shifting assemblages” whose shapes evolved,
matured, and altered relative to the settings they were entangled in. Finally, Jornet and
Steier (2015) explored how a museum space operated as a boundary object not solely
through floor plans and mock-ups but also through its appearances in talk and gestures.
These studies demonstrate that boundary objects come in different shapes over time and
that these dynamics are an effortful, ongoing, and situated accomplishment with crucial
consequences for how collaborative work progresses. Yet, we continue to lack a precise
understanding of how boundary objects (re)emerge in different shapes and the implications
of these processes for meaning-making. This is the puzzle and motivation of our study.
A multimodal lens on the shifting shapes of boundary objects

Collaborators engage through a variety of “modes,” defined as “semiotic resources for mak-
ing meaning” (Kress, 2010: 79). Talk, pictures, objects, notes, gestures, or other types of
embodiments—ways of conversing and creating shared understandings are multiple and not
reducible to the spoken word (Dameron et al., 2015). Multimodal approaches direct analyti-
cal attention to these various ways of communicating and highlight how interactions play out
across visual, verbal, and embodied modes (Streeck et al., 2011). Hence, multimodal
approaches provide us with useful conceptual handles for shedding light on boundary objects’
shifting shapes as different appearances of the same artifact within and across modes.
Reviewing the multimodality literature brings to the fore a set of studies connecting
verbal and visual ways of meaning-making. For instance, Barberá-Tomás et al. (2019)
analyzed how written text and graphical representations conjointly produced emotional
meanings around pollution, which created the energy needed to act against it. Höllerer et al.
(2018) demonstrated how pictures extended what was verbally conveyed in the talk and
writing surrounding the global financial crisis. In turn, Paroutis et al. (2015) studied how
managers interacted with a strategy tool in both visual and verbal ways during a workshop,
leading managers to a collective understanding of a strategic issue.
These endeavors enrich our understanding of how meaning-making processes unfold
across modes. At the same time, they remain limited in their consideration of ways of
engaging. For example, extant research on multimodality pays little attention to one of the
most important parts of communicating: the body (Dameron et al., 2015; Wenzel and Koch,
2018). Moreover, modes tend to be treated as relatively distinct and static categories.
Though visual and verbal dimensions are portrayed as complementing or contradicting
each other, they remain conceptually separate (Knight and Wenzel, forthcoming). An
image is approached as something different and distinct from text, with little appreciation
for how something that is visually displayed might migrate into what is written or said (and
vice versa). That is problematic as it downplays much of the complexity that makes mean-
ing-making so dynamic and fragile (cf. Dille and Plotnikof, 2020; Vásquez et al., 2016).
Recent calls within the multimodality literature stress the need to go beyond the verbal and
visual and treat different modes not as separable but as interacting and co-emerging
(Boxenbaum et al., 2018; Dille and Plotnikof, 2020; Knight and Wenzel, forthcoming).
Particularly Zilber’s (2018) provocations on a “strong” multimodal view question modes’
clear-cut separation. Her conceptualization regards modes not as reified categories but as
situated enactments inseparably enmeshed. Thus, allied to “strong” takes on sociomateriality
(Orlikowski, 2007) or communicative constitutive theorizing (Ashcraft et al., 2009), Zilber’s
(2018) “strong” multimodal view negates the classical divide between the social world as one
domain and the material world as another. Instead, materiality itself is understood as a com-
municational and social performance, a process of materialization rather than a given quality
(Cooren, 2018).
When we then understand meaning-making in communication as always comprising
more than talk alone, questions of materiality or materialization also become matters of
multimodal enactment. A picture, as a boundary object, may be visually displayed on a
screen or as a print-out, but it may just as well materialize through verbal modes (e.g., “the
picture I showed in our last meeting”) or an embodied hand gesture that mimics the pic-
ture’s content. Hence, through different modes, collaborators may make present the very
same artifact in varying shapes. We understand modes as different yet inseparable layers of
communicating and meaning-making, and shapes as the particular appearance(s) of an
artifact. Thus, within one mode (e.g., visuality), a boundary object can take on multiple
situationally enacted shapes (e.g., a visual in its original form and with an icon added).
When understanding the role of multimodality in meaning-making as such, how do
boundary objects emerge and reemerge in varying shapes through different ways of com-
municating? We leverage Zilber’s (2018) “strong” multimodal view to illuminate this
question and help us answer our research questions: How do boundary objects shape-shift
in collaborative work, and how do these dynamics influence meaning-making?
Methods
Context and case
This study’s research context is a Dutch interorganizational collaboration initiative, which
the first author joined as an academic researcher. Her role was that of a non-participant
observer; she followed the collaborative work happening within the initiative without
actively contributing herself. The initiative was established to strengthen organizations’
product lifecycle management and received financial support from a regional develop-
ment fund. In total, the initiative brought together representatives from 23 organizations,
Nathues et al. 7
Figure 1. Original boundary object; © Noventum Service Management (permission granted).
consisting of high-tech companies and service providers that differed on characteristics

such as maturity, structures, or markets. The representatives formed interorganizational
project teams to work on joint challenges and facilitate cross-boundary learning. For
example, teams worked on blockchain technology, cooperation agreements, or business
model transformations. This study is built on observations and analyses of one of the ini-
tiative’s teams, working on servitization. All participating professionals were interested in
implementing servitization ideas more firmly in their offerings but did not yet know
exactly what that would imply. They did not know each other or their organizations before
coming together in the team but were hoping to collectively create a better understanding
of servitization—an outcome they also had to demonstrate in the form of a report at the
project end. No formal team leader was assigned; instead, everyone was mutually respon-
sible for pushing forward their collaborative work.
Initially, we approached the overall initiative with a broad interest in the artifacts members
used. We identified multiple artifacts during our observations, such as project plans, recurring
examples, prototype drawings, and analogies. However, as we followed the dynamics in the
servitization team, we were struck by the prominence of one particular artifact (Figure 1):
team members frequently used a specific visual roadmap and appeared to greatly value this
artifact.
Prior literature on boundary objects led us to appreciate this roadmap as an artifact
through which the collaborators created shared understandings of the topics and objec-
tives of their joint work. Against the background of this literature’s tendency to advance
a relatively static conceptualization of boundary objects’ shapes, we were furthermore
intrigued by the roadmap’s continual reemergence through different visual, verbal, and
embodied modes. Consequently, we decided to narrow our study’s focus on this par-
ticular artifact’s “shape-shifting,” including how these dynamics enabled or con-
strained meaning-making. In that sense, the servitization team’s collaborative work
served as a revealing case for us, rendering boundary objects’ shifting shapes and the
implications of these dynamics for meaning-making accessible for a more thorough
investigation.
All team meetings were attended by five or six members, though with fluctuations as
members changed or left companies, were replaced, or new members joined (see Figure 1
of the online Supplement for a visual overview). These discontinuities led to two succes-
sive meeting gaps of 5 to 6 months, occurring first after the project ran for 9 months.
When members resumed after the first gap, one company withdrew and a new organiza-
tion joined, further shaking up the team composition. We stopped following the team after
the tenth meeting when the boundary object of interest (the roadmap) was no longer used.
Data collection
In line with our interest in situated meaning-making processes and ethnomethodological and
conversational analytical research traditions (Garfinkel, 1967; Schegloff, 1991; Vygotsky,
1934/1986), our analysis builds on naturally occurring interaction data. Specifically, we col-
lected video data of team meetings, produced field notes of these meetings and ethnographic
side conversations with team members, and gathered all team documents. This allowed us
to identify the boundary object’s shifting shapes and examine meaning-making processes in
situ rather than relying on retrospective accounts and recollections of members.
We video-recorded the team meetings with a small 360-degree camera placed on the
meeting table. That way, we had the entire room and all team members (not just those speak-
ing at a given moment) on video, while avoiding the disturbance multiple cameras might
have caused. The first author was present in the meetings to operate the 360-degree camera
and first-hand observe the collaborative work. We collected the team’s documents by access-
ing members’ shared online databases. In total, we collected 21 hours of video-recorded team
meetings, 40 pages of field notes, and 34 documents, such as meeting slides, project plans, or
white papers. For additional details, please refer to Table 1 of the online Supplement.
Analyses
Our analyses proceeded in two main steps: tracing the boundary object’s shifting multi-
modal shapes and, subsequently, exploring the implications of these dynamics for
meaning-making.
Tracing the boundary object’s shifting multimodal shapes. Consulting the insightful but some-
what fragmented literature on multimodality, we designed an analytical process that matched
our interest in the boundary object’s shifting shapes within and across modes. Specifically,
we combined (or bricolaged; Pratt et al., 2022) Meyer et al.’s (2013) practice approach to
visuality with Nathues et al.’s (2021) analytical framework on how objects, voices, and so
forth, can be materialized in and through talk, Gylfe et al.’s (2016) methodological steps on
embodied cognition, and Clarke et al.’s (2021) steps on gestures. This toolset allowed us to
direct our analytical attention to a variety of potential shapes through which the boundary
object could emerge as team members engaged with it. At the same time, it allowed us to
acknowledge, follow, and better comprehend how different modes blurred into each other,
thus keeping with Zilber’s (2018) “strong” approach to multimodality.
Following LeBaron et al.’s (2018) suggestions for video analysis, we began by watch-
ing all video recordings in detail to discern the moments in which the boundary object in
Nathues et al. 9
question (the roadmap) was present in its original visual form but also appeared in differ-
ent shapes. We looked not only at the graphics the team members used but also listened
to the words they uttered and watched how they moved their bodies. Whenever we iden-
tified an instance where the roadmap emerged, we marked it using the qualitative analy-
sis software Atlas.ti. In total, this first step led us to bracket 61 episodes, ranging between
30 seconds and 20 minutes.
We transcribed these 60 episodes, including visible and embodied details. Iterating
between the transcripts, the video recordings, and the collected documents, we then
identified more systematically the visual, verbal, and embodied shapes through
which the roadmap appeared in the interactions. We documented when the original
roadmap was displayed and pointed attention to but also specified its adapted visual
versions, for example, with added boxes. We also inventoried when members picked
up parts of the roadmap (e.g., its forms or vocabulary) in their own visual creations.
We drew inspiration from Nathues et al.’s (2021) framework to specify how the road-
map materialized through talk. We counted instances where members referred to the
artifact as “arrow” or “in that graphic, you know, somewhere left bottom” as explicit
verbal invocations. When members used the artifact’s words or contents in their
explanations (e.g., “then you are sitting in vendor relations”), we considered these as
more implicit verbal materializations. Members often invoked gestures resembling
the roadmap’s upward curve. We categorized instantiations of these gestures as
embodied shapes of the boundary object (Clarke et al., 2021; Gylfe et al., 2016). For
completeness, we also noted the other ways members engaged with the artifact
through their bodies (e.g., leaning toward or pointing at it). The artifact partly
appeared through one singular mode at a time (e.g., as a graphic on screen) but partly
also through multiple modes simultaneously, for instance, when members verbally
described the roadmap and gesticulated its curve (“so here you foresee the possibil-
ity to grow from left bottom to the next phase ((gesticulating upwards curve))?”).
For all instances, we also kept note of which team member made present
the artifact.
By plotting and comparing empirical evidence of the boundary object’s fluctuat-
ing shapes side by side in a table, we abstracted two primary shape-shifting dynam-
ics: expanding and contracting. Specifically, we found that the boundary object’s
shapes expanded as collaborative work proceeded through intermodal shape-shifting
across visual, verbal, and embodied modes as well as intramodal shape-shifting
within them. We identified intermodal shifts when the roadmap was made present in
one mode and, within the same episode or in a subsequent one, the same or a differ-
ent team member invoked the object in a new mode (e.g., from visual to verbal
mode). In turn, we identified intramodal shifts when a new shape of the object within
the same mode appeared (e.g., an adapted visual version). Both processes contrib-
uted to the boundary object’s expanding shapes, starting in meeting 2 and lasting
until meeting 5. Then, we found that the object’s shapes contracted, with the object
reemerging primarily in verbal and bodily shapes (i.e., contracting intermodally),
often in simplified ways such as just a single word or quick gesture (i.e., contracting
intramodally). Please consult Table 2 of the online Supplement for an overview of
the roadmap’s shapes.
Identifying the implications for meaning-making. Next, for each of the 61 episodes in which
we had identified the presence of the roadmap, we specified the boundary object’s
implications for how team members were accomplishing meaning-making: how exactly
did the artifact enable or constrain the creation of shared understandings across its vary-
ing shapes? We paid particular attention to how the artifact helped or hindered team
members in creating shared understandings of their work’s topic (i.e., servitization) and
everyone’s interests, objectives, and preferences regarding this topic.
To derive conclusions about how the boundary object’s shifting shapes supported or
thwarted meaning-making, we zoomed into the smallest details of communication,
looking for analytical cues of shared understandings such as affirmations, nodding,
clarifying questions, using the same words as a previous interlocutor, progressively less
complex explanations, or coproduction and co-completion of utterances (Clark and
Wilkes-Gibbs, 1986; Cooren, 2004; Deppermann and Schmidt, 2021; Holler and Wilkin,
2009; Lerner, 1993). We also considered signs of disengaging behavior and lack of
shared understandings, such as staring at phone or laptop screens, head-shaking, or
appearing puzzled and confused. For completeness, we also specified by whom the
roadmap was used and detailed what exactly it was used for in meaning-making.
Eventually, we plotted the artifact’s multimodal shapes and implications for meaning-
making onto a timeline covering all 61 episodes to help us better comprehend how the
roadmap affected shared understandings within the team over time. By comparing and
identifying differences in the boundary object’s shapes as well as differences in how the
team made shared understandings of their work in response (or not), we used this time-
line to temporally bracket (Langley, 1999) how collaborative work in the team evolved.
We identified four phases, each indicative of different shapes and implications of the
boundary object on meaning-making. The phases structure our Findings section; addi-
tional details can be accessed in Table 3 of the online Supplement.
We also presented our findings to the team members. They confirmed our analytical
insights, specifically regarding the roadmap’s initial prominence and its later confusion.
Looking back, one member described the team’s later phases as “the graphic lost its
power,” “disconnects and gaps emerged,” and “the team spirit faded away.” Our member
checks revealed that the members struggled to finish their project. The new and old
members neither connected on the roadmap nor on any other object, which is why they
“didn’t become a team again.” However, we also learned that old members continued
believing in the artifact’s meaning-making powers (“I still think that the visual has great
value”) and were still using it in their organizations to foster shared understandings (“In
fact, I do exactly the same: I leverage this visual to tell the complete story of servitiza-
tion, to keep all stakeholders on board.”).
Findings
This section presents a detailed empirical narrative of the focal boundary object’s
shifting shapes and the resulting implications for meaning-making. The narrative
broadly follows a conceptualized composition format (Berends and Deken, 2021),
that is, it zooms into particular moments of the collaboration while leveraging the
shape-shifting dynamics we identified as theoretical signposts. Video stills have
Nathues et al. 11
been transformed into sketch designs to protect anonymity, and faces and company
logos have been blurred.
Phase I: A potential boundary object

Phase I marks the collaboration’s start, and members need to figure out what they want
to work on. Though their project has been given an official name that includes “servitiza-
tion,” everyone’s knowledge of this subject is limited. Members also need to learn about
each other’s organizations and their different maturities, needs, and wishes regarding
servitization.
At one point in meeting 2, James introduces a graphic to the team. This graphic has
been created by an outside consultancy company. It portrays servitization as a step-
wise roadmap, illustrated by two upward-curve-shaped arrows (Figure 1). From this
moment onwards, James repeatedly insists on visually displaying the artifact, or he
makes it an explicit part of discussions by using it in his explanations or inquiring his
colleagues about it (in meeting 3, in nine episodes in total). Some other team members
begin using it, too, to clarify differences between organizations and help them better
understand each other, and first ideas of what servitization is and potential project
objectives start to form.
Expansion dynamics: intermodal shape-shifting. Early in meeting 3, team members are dis-
cussing a presentation they prepared to communicate their work to other participants of
the overarching initiative. One slide shows the roadmap (Figure 1):
1 Paul: And then I have the slide with the image of James ((pointing to and quickly
2 glancing at James)) because you can eh- eh you can use it to explain that it
3 is really a journey that you need to walk through ((Tim now quickly glancing
4 at Paul, then directing his attention back to the roadmap)) and uhm let’s say, all
5 the places where you could- eh could be standing ((Daniel nodding and now
6 turning to look away from Paul and toward the screen with the roadmap on)).
7 Kind of the eh global overview of it all ((pointing to slide with the roadmap,
8 gesticulating a circle)).
9 James: Yes, what is so great about this graphic is indeed the stepwise thing ((pointing
10 to the graphic)) but it’s also a question of three piles: value proposition,
11 business model, and type of relation ((still pointing)) and, for me, eh ((pointing
12 to himself)) those aspects are inextricably linked to each other. So, if you
13 want to go further right ((gesticulating an upward curve with his entire hand;
14 Robert is looking at James and nodding)), then you need to have those three
15 aspects well up and running ((now Paul is looking at James and nodding)). And
16 otherwise, it doesn’t make sense to uhm- ((gesticulating upwards curve again))
17 so that’s where the challenge lies, to get these aspects up and running at the
18 same time.
19 Paul: Yes ((nodding slightly, now looking at the roadmap again)).
20 Robert: Yes ((looking at the roadmap again)).
Figure 2. James’s representative gesture of the roadmap.
Paul walks the team through the presentation. A slide with the roadmap is displayed, and
he is explaining the graphic’s potential meanings and usages. He explicitly links the graphic
to “James” (line 1) and is also speaking with a somewhat general “you” (lines 1–5) when
talking about the team’s possible “journey” (line 3) the roadmap displays, instead of with a
more collective team voice (“we”). Paul is partly contributing to positioning the roadmap
as an artifact that could guide the team’s work, using it to create shared understandings
about servitization (note also Daniel’s nodding in line 5). However, for the largest part, the
roadmap remains connected to “James” (line 1) as its leading advocate.
James is confirming Paul’s explanations (line 9) and gives a more accurate descrip-
tion of why the roadmap could be valuable, highlighting what he considers its most
important aspects (lines 9–18). Amongst others, he is verbally drawing attention to the
artifact’s “stepwise” (line 9) program and its “three piles” (line 10), concluding that “the
challenge lies” (line 17) in “hav[ing] those three aspects well up and running” (lines
14–15). James is using the artifact to foster a shared understanding of servitization’s
main challenges among members and to sketch a potential collaborative direction for
their joint work. As he is doing so, the visually displayed roadmap expands in shape by
intermodally shifting into what James vocalizes: it is not just present in visual form but
also materializing through the words James is uttering. Both Paul and Robert affirm
James’s elaborations (lines 14–15; 19–20), hinting at the possible emergence of shared
meanings in the team.
Besides the roadmap’s presence in James’s words, James is also channeling attention to
the artifact by pointing to it (lines 9–11) and making representational gestures that mimic the
roadmap’s upward curve (lines 13, 16; Figure 2). Thus, the artifact does not only intermo-
dally shift into James’s utterances but, likewise, into his bodily movements, once more
expanding in shape. The roadmap gains verbal and embodied forms, the repertoire of its
shapes widening with James using the object to help create shared understandings.
Expansion dynamics: intramodal shape-shifting. Meeting 3 proceeds, and James continues

enacting representative gestures of the roadmap; they accompany his explanations and
the artifact’s visual displays. Though most of James’s utterances show a future orienta-
tion (he is making sense of the next steps companies need to take on their servitization
journey), at one point, James starts reflecting on the developments in his organization in
the recent past. The original roadmap is displayed on a screen:
Nathues et al. 13
1 James: We now have two new contracts, also pushed by the customers, uhm
2 and one eh- is sitting more in preventive ((pointing to the respective area on
3 the roadmap; Paul is opening his notebook and starting to write)) and eh- the
4 other more in availability service ((pointing to the respective area on the
5 roadmap)) u:::hm so we now have these new contracts, but it is pretty
6 recent still. And e:::h- we do want to perform them but (.) what we have
7 lots of difficulties with now is we transitioned towards a new organizational
8 form. Sales efforts are eh- primarily focused on the initial product sale,
9 not on service. And also, in this new organizational form, we have lots of
10 difficulties to eh- get things up and running for speed of repair ((pointing to
11 the respective area on the roadmap)). So, with this re-organization, we have
12 actually fallen back to, let’s say, speed of repair ((gesticulating a downwards
13 curve with his entire hand)). And right now, we pour lots of energy into
14 getting that back running again.
15 Daniel: ((Looking at the graphic)) How did that happen? You already had it, and now
16 speed of repair is an issue again ((now turning to James))? It was going well,
17 so how- how can it be that you, let’s say, fall back completely as eh- an- an
18 organization?
19 James: Well, we- we used to have a customer service and support department. But
20 people thought it would be a good idea to integrate that department with
21 eh- all other departments, aligned with a new organizational structure. So
22 now we do not have a separate customer service and support department
23 anymore ((during Daniel and James’s exchange, Robert and Tim are looking at
24 the two speakers; Paul is still writing in his notebook)).
25 Daniel: Ah, okay ((nodding)).
James is talking to his team colleagues about two new contracts his company has
signed, using the roadmap to indicate these contracts’ servitization stages. Thus, the
artifact is used by James to create a shared understanding among all members about
his organization’s status quo. Specifically, James is pointing to the artifact (lines
2–5, 10–11) and is also employing its exact words (“preventive,” line 2; “availabil-
ity service,” line 4; “speed of repair,” lines 10 and 12), which allows him to unam-
biguously categorize these contracts and, thus, supports shared understandings. In
the previous example, James’s vocalizations about the roadmap homed in on the
overall servitization journey it displayed; now, James is talking about more isolated
spots on the graphic. Hence, the artifact is materializing in James’s words in a dif-
ferent shape, expanding in form by intramodally shifting within the verbal mode.
Daniel shows an intention to engage in meaning-making, too. For instance, note
how he is directing his gaze toward the roadmap (line 15) and using the roadmap’s
words (“speed of repair,” line 16) when inquiring for more details. The graphic
forms a joint reference base from which shared understandings are produced (“Ah,
okay,” line 25).
James is also elaborating in more detail on the “difficulties” (line 7) he is
encountering in his organization about delivering their new contracts’ services. In
Figure 3. James’s representative gesture of the roadmap, now downwards.
particular, he is explaining how new organizational structures make providing ser-

vices more complicated (lines 6–14) as they make his company “fall back” (line 12)
on the roadmap’s steps. While talking about these backward developments, James is
moving his hand in the curved form we have seen before. Yet, this time, his gesturing
moves downwards instead of upwards. Once again, the roadmap’s shapes are expand-
ing, this time by intramodally shifting into a novel embodied shape of the artifact
(Figure 3).
Overall, it is still early days for the team, and the roadmap’s presence is primarily
pushed by James. The artifact is mostly present through visual displays of its original
version. However, it also already is expanding in shapes, finding its way into James’s
bodily movements and members’ talk. In parallel, initial shared understandings
around the topic of servitization as well as the differences between each other’s
organizations emerge.
Phase II: An actual boundary object

The project proceeds. Members now better understand servitization and each other’s
varying needs but also agree that everyone seeks to facilitate servitization activities
in their companies. The updated project plan words their goals as follows: “The pri-
mary goals are that members learn from each other and set important steps toward
servitization.” The plan also includes the roadmap, positioning it as a central element
of the collaborative work. In addition to its placement in the project plan, the artifact
is frequently used in members’ interactions (in total, in 21 episodes across meetings
4 and 5).
Continued expansion dynamics: intermodal shape-shifting. Members are in their fourth

meeting, trying to understand better why servitization remains such a challenge. The
original roadmap is visually displayed. It is now Robert, not James, who is drawing
attention to it:
Nathues et al. 15
1 Robert: If you now consider this image ((pointing to the original roadmap)), there
2 are three piles. And one of them is- (.) is business model.
3 James: Yes.
4 Robert: I think that you (.) potentially you also simply make money with this,
5 but we only have few enablers for that, here ((pointing to the other two
6 piles, “type of relation” and “value proposition”))
7 James: Yes, yes. That’s also what I think is the strength of this graphic. It’s
8 about type of relation, business model, and value proposition. And- (.)
9 and actually, they are completely interlinked.
10 Robert: Yes, yes. ((slightly nodding; Alex is also nodding))
11 James: And if you want to go further right ((gesticulating an upwards curve with
12 his entire hand, pointing to the roadmap)), then you must make a step in
13 each of these aspects.
14 Robert: Yes [. . .] and then you can check where your model sits in there,
15 where does it go wrong ((pointing to the roadmap)), why you’re not able
16 to offer the value.
Looking for answers to why servitization proves challenging to implement, Robert is

drawing attention to the roadmap’s “three piles” (line 2); the very aspect of the
graphic that James has emphasized the most. Here, Robert is leveraging the graphic
to co-construct meaning; the fact that he is focusing on an aspect that James stressed
before shows that understandings about servitization are indeed traveling between
members. Team members build upon each other’s contributions and, in this way,
extend their shared understanding of servitization. As James has extensively
explained in previous meetings but also is repeating here again, servitization can
only work if efforts are put into different aspects simultaneously (“it’s about type of
relation, business model, and value proposition,” lines 7–8) as “they are completely
interlinked” (line 9). The roadmap’s upward curve is materializing in James’s hand
movement (lines 11–12) when he is emphasizing the artifact’s stepwise journey
(Figure 4). Thus, in the process of meaning-making we can observe here, the graphic
is visually displayed but also shifts into what James utters and how he moves his
body, being present in the discussion in multiple interrelated shapes all at the same
time. These expanding shapes support the team’s meaning-making (note the affirma-
tions in line 10). Shared understandings are co-created on different modal layers in
parallel, enriching members’ meaning-making.
Indeed, Robert’s elaborations reference the roadmap, too. Specifically, Robert is
repeatedly pointing to the artifact (line 1; lines 5–6; line 15) and is using the graphic’s
terminology (“business model,” line 2). Hence, the artifact also is made present through
verbal expressions by Robert. The connections between the roadmap and the team’s col-
laborative work have spread beyond James through different modes, with the artifact now
being a central reference point for the team to engage in collective meaning-making.
Another example of that is Robert’s gesture (Figure 5) when, in meeting 5, he is
explaining his company’s servitization stage. Before, only James had used this gesture.
Now, the roadmap’s expanding shapes travel between members, in parallel to shared
understandings growing and strengthening in the team:
1 Robert: Well, I think we’re still sitting uhm so if you say that you’re still sitting very
2 much at the start so reactive and uhm mostly spare parts ((Olly nodding)), I
3 think we could make one or two exceptions but overall we’re also sitting
4 there ((Olly nodding again)) [. . .] and that’s why we think it’s worth considering
5 if we would now work towards such a model, what would that mean? [. . .]
6 so the path that you’ve just described ((gesticulating an upwards curve with his
7 entire hand, the roadmap is not shown)) we’re trying to figure that out.
Figure 5. Robert’s representative gesture of the roadmap.
Once again using the roadmap’s exact words, Robert is positioning his company “very
much at the start so reactive and uhm mostly spare parts” (lines 1–2). When enacting his
upwards-shaped gesture (Figure 5), he is also verbally referring to “the path” (line 6).
Notably, this time, the roadmap is not shown; it becomes expressed solely through
Robert’s words and bodily movement. Members have created solid shared understand-
ings so that, by now, verbal and embodied shapes of the graphic appear sufficient for
them to engage in meaning-making.
Continued expansion dynamics: intramodal shape-shifting. While shared understandings

strengthen in the team, members are also still in the process of learning more about
their organizations. Meeting 4 takes place at Organization C, and Paul uses that
Nathues et al. 17
occasion to provide more details about one of his company’s products. To support
collaborative meaning-making, he leverages an adapted version of the roadmap
(Figure 6):
1 Paul: And based on the discussions we had with Ed, for Product C, well ehm (.) our idea
2 certainly was that uhm- (.) that it probably sits somewhere left bottom e:::h so it’s
3 mostly about time and usability- eh availability. Those are the most important
4 points, I think. And the preventive maintenance, what’s kind of like in-between,
5 that would probably just be dropped.
Figure 6. The visual with Paul’s adaptions (added box and arrow).
Paul has added a box and an arrow to the artifact that signify where “Product C” (line 1)
is sitting (“Time & Material”) and where this product would ideally go (“Availability
Services”), which supports him in getting across his explanations. Paul’s additions also
indicate that the “Preventive Maintenance” step is less relevant for his company, which
he explains, too (lines 4–5). Essentially, the adapted roadmap becomes a medium through
which Organization C, or more specifically, Product C, communicates. The roadmap’s
intramodally expanding shape into a new visual version permeates the boundary between
Organization C and the project team, thereby supporting members’ shared understanding
of one another. In a conversation with Paul, he explained adapting the roadmap to us as
follows: “I created my own version to clarify to my team colleagues what is going on at
Organization C. I embraced the power of the visual and the story that is behind it.”
Overall, in phase II, stronger ties between the roadmap and the team are built. Members
beyond James leverage the artifact to work through differences in understandings and con-
texts. Hence, the artifact functions as an actual boundary object; it takes on an active role in
helping members create shared understandings. Numerous appearances of the graphic across
and within modes strengthen its central position and important meaning-making function.
Shapes of the roadmap continue expanding while shared understandings grow from a global
understanding of servitization to a more precise one: members are now all able to position
their organization in relation to the artifact. Noteworthily, whereas in phase I the original
roadmap was visually displayed in all episodes, in phase II, its verbal and embodied shapes
appear sufficient to make present the artifact and support members’ meaning-making.
Phase III: An interwoven boundary object

The collaboration proceeds further. Members develop specific plans for their organiza-
tions to push servitization to the next level. For example, participants from Organization
A focus on how to foster a servitization mindset at their service desk, and the others
explore the added value that servitization would bring customers. The roadmap contin-
ues to help members make shared sense of their efforts (appearing in 23 episodes
across meetings 6 and 7). For example, its stages and features allow them to differenti-
ate present and prospective scenarios or distinguish between customer groups.
However, rather than continuing to expand in shapes, the boundary object’s shape-
shifting dynamics appear to reach a tipping point and start narrowing down. Shapes of
the roadmap are contracting, no longer including its original visual shape. Instead, the
boundary object is present through three adapted visual versions and, primarily, simple
references in members’ words and bodies. These contracted shapes simultaneously
streamline and enrich team members’ meaning-making.
Contraction dynamics enabling meaning-making. Meeting 6 has been running for an hour,
and James has just explained his plans for implementing servitization in Organization
A when Paul starts probing for further details. Notably, the roadmap is not displayed
but made present solely through hand movements and verbal references to its colors,
red and blue:
1 Paul: Now, James, does that mean that at a certain moment, you’re going to take
2 over your customers’ processes?
3 James: Uhm well not taking over everything, but you do become part of it.
4 Paul: Part of (.) ((nodding)) uhm so that also means that your customer depends on
5 Organization A (.) uhm and (.) uhm is that not something that is really difficult
6 for you, in your market?
7 James: Yes, true. That’s why we need to segment our customers ((Paul nodding))
8 [. . .] our customers, I could easily just plot them onto the arrow, onto that
9 background.
10 Paul: Yes.
11 James: And then one segment sits here ((moving his right hand up with a pointed finger,
12 as if he were pointing to the roadmap’s upper right corner)), another segment
13 sits here ((lowering his hand, finger still pointed)), and another still here
14 ((further lowering his hand, finger pointed)).
15 Paul: Yes, yes. ((nodding))
16 James: And with some, we might actually never get much further.
17 Paul: But if you would need to put it in percentages, up until where can your
18 customers come, at all? ((gesticulating representative curve with both hands))
19 Is it not the case that like 50 percent will never leave the blue area? Or maybe
20 even 75 percent? So that you maybe have 25 percent of all possible customers
21 that you could maybe fill the red area with?
Nathues et al. 19
Paul is asking James for more details about their customers’ processes (lines 1–2).
However, he does not appear convinced by James’s response (line 3) as he keeps
questioning, now focusing on the feasibility of James’s plans (lines 4–6). James
acknowledges Paul’s doubts, providing a more elaborate answer. Specifically, he
starts explaining how customers need to be segmented (line 7), which Paul nod-
dingly acknowledges (line 7). James is then invoking the roadmap that has been
guiding the team’s meaning-making through a simple, verbal reference (“the arrow,”
line 8) and starts locating customers “onto that background” (lines 8–9), presumably
to prove the customer segmentation’s feasibility and come to a shared understanding
with Paul. The roadmap is not shown but made present solely through this simple
verbal shape as well as James’s movement: when talking about where customers
would sit on the graphic, he is moving his hand (lines 11–14), tracing the visual
curve from top right to left bottom as if it were displayed right in front of him and
the others (Figure 7). The graphic is supporting James and Paul’s shared understand-
ing through these subtle (verbal and embodied) shapes, providing a powerful joint
reference base for their discussion even when made present solely through implicit,
fleeting, and contracted cues.
Indeed, Paul is invoking the artifact through similar embodied modes (line 18,
Figure 8) in his reaction to James, gesticulating its upward curve with both hands.
This further evinces that team members are operating from a strong shared under-
standing in their meaning-making, grounded in the graphic’s varied shapes. However,
despite James’s more profound explanations, Paul still seems unconvinced (lines
17–21). He appears to be doubting that James’s servitization plans can ever be imple-
mented many of their customers, invoking the roadmap’s “blue area” (lines 19–20)
and “red area” (line 21) for support. Again, the artifact is not shown; it is invoked
solely through simple verbal and embodied modes, which appear sufficient for James
and Paul to know precisely what the other is talking about. Both invoke the artifact
to help them make better sense of their discussion, providing a robust interactional
ground for their exchange, even when they end up disagreeing here.
Figure 8. Paul gesticulates the upwards curve with both hands.
Later in the meeting, Paul explains his plans for his company’s servitization. Once
again, the roadmap is not shown:
1 Paul: So, I try to work on that aspect, not completely to the right side ((gesticulating
2 with an open hand)) but more so that we get the start correctly [. . .] it’s
3 primarily about the left side, to give form to that for Organization C. Making
4 the first two steps, perhaps the third. But eh- yes first setting up the basics.
5 That’s my goal.
6 James: Yes, yes. I can understand very well where you are sitting right now with your
7 products, based on all our conversations.
8 Paul: Yes. ((nodding))
Paul makes present the graphic exclusively through what he says and how he moves his body.
For example, he is explaining how his organization does not seek to go “completely to the
right side” (line 1) but is more focused on “the left side” (line 3) and on “making the first two
steps, perhaps the third” (lines 3–4). While vocalizing these details, he is moving his hand in
the upward-curved shape that came to represent the roadmap over time (Figure 9). Even
when not displayed, the roadmap guides what team members work on and helps them create
shared understandings, as James’s reaction illustrates (“I can understand very well,” line 5).
Hence, the graphic, in its contracted verbal and embodied shapes, is leveraged by members
to support their explanations, help them convey meaning, and communicate with the rest of
the team in simple but greatly meaningful terms.
Figure 9. Paul’s representative gesture of the roadmap.

Nathues et al. 21
Overall, in phase III, the roadmap functions as a deeply interwoven boundary

object and is an indispensable part of members’ meaning-making. Members are so
fluent in “speaking the graphic” that they understand the artifact’s most implicit
shapes. The roadmap’s colors convey meaning even when not visible, and its exten-
sion into members’ bodies seems almost excessively natural. Indeed, the artifact is
so firmly woven into all members’ words and bodies that its visual presence stops
appearing almost altogether. The vast repertoire of visual, verbal, and embodied
shapes contracts into primarily subtle spoken and bodily materializations. Members
can move forward based on the strong shared understandings established by now—
made present through, most often, nothing more than a word or gesture.
Phase IV: A boundary object creating new boundaries

However, the team is then shaken up: two members from a new organization join, and
Robert, Olly, and Tim leave. Because of the fluctuation, the members need to get
acquainted with one another and their organizations again. When Paul and James use
the roadmap to explain their organizations’ products and servitization objectives to
the newcomers in meeting 8, the situation hence feels like a déjà vu. However, in
contrast to the collaboration’s beginnings, James and Paul now make present the
roadmap exclusively in its contracted verbal and embodied shapes (in five episodes
in meeting 8, of which it is visually displayed not once). Subsequently, the artifact
starts disappearing from the team’s interactions (being present only twice in meeting
9, in verbal and embodied shapes) before evaporating altogether (in meeting 10, it is
no longer present). New members cannot make sense of the object’s contracted
appearances, and the previously powerful boundary object becomes an obstacle to
further collaborative work.
Contraction dynamics constraining meaning-making. Early in meeting 8, Paul explains

Organization C’s servitization activities and ambitions to the new members, trying to
create shared understandings within the novel team constellation. However, though he is
verbally referring to the roadmap, he does not show it:
1 Paul: So now we actually set up the first service package, so that’s a bit of the
2 servitization transition, in that graphic (.) you know, somewhere left bottom.
3 And then especially focusing on repair times [. . .] so, the first steps are made,
4 and there are options to give shape to the transition. ((as Paul talks, James is
5 nodding repeatedly; Sam, a new member, is taking notes but at one point leans back
6 in his chair, folding his arms and raising one hand to his chin; Nate, another new
7 member, is closely looking at Paul))
8 Nate: If I understand correctly then it’s mainly about services after you have sold the
9 product? And that it has to keep on working? ((Sam continues writing, not looking
10 up))
11 Paul: E:::h yes- ((nodding))
12 Nate: So not, uhm, like how can I offer my product as a service?
13 Paul: No, well, if you look at Organization C, you can actually say that we sell
14 services because we always start with product development.
In his elaborations, Paul is making present the roadmap only through verbal refer-
ences (e.g., “in that graphic,” “somewhere left bottom,” or “repair times,” lines 2–3).
Nate, one of the new members, is showing difficulties in understanding Paul, as indi-
cated by his questions (lines 8–9, line 12) but also by Paul’s hesitant and corrective
answers (line 11, lines 13–14). Paul and Nate do not seem to understand one another
very well, such that meaning-making between them fails. Sam, another new member,
also appears disengaged from the discussion, steadily writing in his notebook without
once looking up.
Just moments later, the conversation moves to the case the new members want to add
to the collaboration. Luke speaks about one of his organization’s products when Paul and
James once more direct the conversation to the roadmap without its being visually
displayed:
1 Luke: So Product B2 should be able to make arrangements with customers on

2 service, clear arrangements [. . .]
3 Paul: Are you able to place it on the arrow? ((gesticulating an upwards curve))
4 Luke: Yes, so (.) e:::h (.) regarding what types of service you want (.) to- to- offer-?
5 Paul: But then uhm so you want to know what exactly you will offer for each e:::h
6 so left bottom is repairs and eh right top is a full helpdesk, for example.
7 [. . .]
8 James: From what I understand is that with this product, you will very much be stuck
9 in the first part. Not really growing further right [. . .] that’s still left, very
10 much left, so the product itself.
Paul and James are referring to the roadmap as “arrow” (line 3), are materializing it
through the representative gesture that became its natural embodied shape (line 3), or are
talking about being “stuck in the first part” and not “growing further right” (line 9).
However, just like Nate, Luke is showing difficulties in responding, indicated by his
hesitant tone and question (line 4). Presumably, he cannot make sense of the artifact’s
verbal and embodied appearances in Paul’s talk and hand movement (line 3, Figure 10).
Once again, meaning-making fails between the old and new team members.
Paul is then specifying his question to Luke (lines 5–6). Only those who have sat with
the team for many meetings can “see” the roadmap in his talk, such as when he is refer-
ring to “left bottom is repairs” or “right top is a full helpdesk” (line 6). As a new member,
these contracted shapes (i.e., the verbal materializations but also the embodied shape
from before (line 3, Figure 10)) must be more difficult to catch and correctly interpret for
Luke, who has not witnessed the graphic’s expanding shapes across and within modes
over time. It is then James who locates Organization C’s product on the roadmap, explic-
itly placing it in the “first part” and “very much left” (lines 9–10).
Overall, in phase IV, James and Paul continue where they left off in their handling of
the roadmap, relying exclusively on the artifact’s contracted verbal and embodied shapes.
In a later conversation we had with James, he explained this as follows: “We would have
had to put in the same effort again while not making any progress on top of where I was
already in my mind.” The roadmap’s contracted shapes are greatly meaningful for James
Nathues et al. 23
Figure 10. Paul’s representative gesture of the roadmap.
and Paul, yet they are not at all meaningful for the new members. Consequently, old and
new members fail at creating shared understandings. The team breaks apart, with one
part having the graphic deeply woven into their minds, words, and bodies, and the other
part lacking this intimate familiarity with the artifact and thus not making sense of its
verbal and embodied shapes. Members find themselves on split rather than common
ground, the roadmap becoming a boundary object that creates new boundaries and no
longer supports the entire team’s meaning-making. Subsequently, the artifact disappears
from the team’s collaborative work. Single words or simple gestures no longer suffice as
meaningful boundary objects. As James phrased it in another conversation we had with
him: “The graphic lost its team-wide matter, and the total subject of servitization lost its
team-wide matter.”
Discussion
What happens to meaning-making when boundary objects shape-shift over time, such as
when new versions develop or visual artifacts turn into simple phrases and gestures? The
empirical narrative presented before has provided insights into these dynamics. We now
seek to more profoundly discuss and theorize our empirical observations. We first focus
on this article’s contributions to the literature on boundary objects. Subsequently, we
discuss our contributions to the multimodality literature as well as the practical implica-
tions of our work.
Boundary objects as shape-shifters: Enabling and constraining meaning-

making
This article provides novel and fine-grained insights into how boundary objects shape-
shift. By so doing, it adds to the literature on boundary objects, offering a processual
account of their shifting shapes and meaning-making implications. Whereas previous
work has tended to sketch images of more or less static artifacts in light of changing
boundaries, our analyses extend our understanding of boundary objects’ fluid nature
(e.g., Doolin and McLeod, 2012; Ewenstein and Whyte, 2009) by conceptualizing them
as multimodal accomplishments.
Precisely, our analyses point to two shape-shifting dynamics through which bound-
ary objects can change form and, in so doing, become deeply enmeshed in the day-to-
day fabric and meaning-making processes of collaborative work: expanding and
contracting. Together, the shape-shifting dynamics pronounce boundary objects as
malleable and pliable; their form not being something that is given or can be presumed
but something that is situationally performed (Star, 2010). Language and bodies are
constitutive of boundary objects’ forms and functions as much as more physical mat-
ters (Jornet and Steier, 2015), which is what makes these artifacts able to shape-shift
within and across modes.
Better comprehending these shape-shifting dynamics is important because, as our
analyses have shown, boundary objects that reemerge in different shapes can have vary-
ing implications for meaning-making, which by itself already is a complex and fragile
process (cf. Vásquez et al., 2016). Specifically, the expansion and contraction dynamics
we have identified offer an explanation for why a shape-shifting boundary object enables
meaning-making in some situations and constrains it in others. In the case we studied,
expanding shapes of the artifact allowed team members to create shared understandings
in diverse and communicationally rich ways. That is, members leveraged the artifact not
just in its visual forms but also drew on verbal and embodied shapes, the object providing
a multimodal hook on which to hang their explanations (see also Bechky, 2003a). Once
team members were intimately familiarized with the artifact and strong shared under-
standings were formed, the object’s shapes contracted again, albeit to different forms
than the original visual version: the vast repertoire of visual, verbal, and embodied shapes
contracted into exclusively spoken and bodily materializations. For familiarized mem-
bers, these subtle shapes carried the entire history of collaborative meaning-making
(Holler and Wilkin, 2009), so contraction dynamics simultaneously simplified and
enriched their communication: the simplest references sufficed to ensure everyone was
speaking about the same topic (see also Bechky, 2003a; Garfinkel, 1967; Vygotsky,
1934/1986). However, the artifact’s contracted shapes also constrained meaning-making
when newcomers joined the team who were not familiarized with the artifact and did not
contribute to its expanding shapes. Figure 11 visualizes these dynamics in a conjunctive
process model (Cloutier and Langley, 2020). The differently colored squares represent
different modes; color nuances signify novel shapes within a mode with less saturation
indicating a simpler and more implicit shape (e.g., a single word).
Theorizing from our findings, on the one hand, boundary objects’ expanding and con-
tracting multimodal shapes signal that an artifact is firmly embedded in and, thus, vitally
important for meaning-making. As collaborators repeatedly leverage an artifact in their
discussions, it can change into new forms and migrate into utterances and bodily move-
ments, which nurtures and tightens the connections between the artifact and the collabora-
tors using it. That way, boundary objects appearing in increasingly diverse shapes eventually
become invaluable and “ready-to-hand” (Star, 1999: 380) meaning-making devices that
enable collaborators to create shared understandings across modes, allowing them to liter-
ally think, see, speak, and move in synchronized ways. In close resemblance with Harvey’s
(2014) idea of “creative synthesis,” the boundary object then “act[s] like a map” (325),
grounding, guiding, and continuously pushing forward the collaborative work.
Nathues et al. 25
Figure 11. Expansion and contraction dynamics of a shape-shifting boundary object and how
they affect collaborative meaning-making; the differently colored squares represent different
modes; color nuances signify novel shapes within a mode, with less saturation indicating a
simpler and more implicit shape.
However, on the other hand, boundary objects’ varied multimodal shapes confuse and
stall meaning-making when new collaborators come on board who cannot make sense of
an artifact’s appearances in, for example, talk and bodies. Indeed, artifacts can become
so sunken into a team’s way of being that they do not only invisibly support collaborative
work but also hamper it by constraining meaning-making—“one person’s infrastructure
is another’s [. . .] difficulty,” as Star (1999: 380) aptly phrased it. In response to Star’s
(2010: 612) question, “Could not a word be a boundary object?”, our case hence demon-
strates that single words or simple gestures can be helpful boundary objects for some, yet
they can just as well be too implicit to make any proper meaning for others.
These findings add nuance to our understanding of boundary objects not solely as
supportive but also as hindering devices, highlighting the fickle tipping point between an
artifact being a “bridge” versus a “maze” (Oswick and Robertson, 2009). As our study
shows, questions of boundary objects’ functions and effects are not only questions of
context, collaborators, and collaboration stage (Carlile, 2002) but likewise of potentially
diverse forms of the artifact itself. Thus, though much literature has emphasized bound-
ary objects’ supportive nature for building shared understandings and common ground
(e.g., Henderson, 1991; Koskinen, 2005; Ojansivu et al., 2021), this article provides a
more balanced account.
Our findings also draw attention to boundary objects’ deeply relational character. In
many ways, we could infer from our findings that boundary objects emerge and reemerge
not just through different modes but also in and through relations. That is, objects’ diver-
sifying shapes and whether collaborators can recognize them are a matter of the connec-
tions and degree of familiarity established between an artifact and those who use it (see
also Star, 2010). Collaborators who have built strong connections with a boundary object
can mobilize and make sense of it in diverse, multimodal forms; those who have not
struggle with grasping these varied and often implicit shapes. Hence, an artifact (or a
particular shape of it) is not constraining per se; whether it supports or thwarts meaning-
making depends on context, situation, those using it, how it is being used, its usage
before, and so forth. This insight stresses boundary objects’ fundamentally relational
nature: no boundary object, in whatever shape it materializes, is a discrete entity—rather,
its emergence, changes, and consequences are a matter of entangled relations (see also
Star, 1999, 2010). Boundary objects are not things but things-in-process (Lutters and
Ackerman, 2007)—meshworks of humans and non-humans, constantly unfolding in and
through relations.
Taking boundary objects’ relational character seriously stresses their precarity. When
enabling and constraining implications are ultimately a matter of the relations established
between artifacts and collaborators, then changes in context and/or constellation can cause
ruptures that initially might appear minuscule but have the power to completely sway the
dynamics of collaborative work. To illustrate, the artifact we studied in one moment was a
robust meaning-making device that literally moved members’ thoughts, words, and bodies
in synchronized ways. Yet, in the very next moment, the artifact’s strong relations with only
a part of the team completely shifted the dynamics when new members could not make
sense of its contracted appearances in talk and gestures. Enabling effects turned into con-
straining ones, only for the boundary object to vanish altogether from the collaboration
shortly afterward. As in Weick’s (1996) Mann Gulch case, dropping the roadmap—instead
of “dropping one’s tool” (p. 308)—might have offered the team, in its new constellation,
the chance to begin building new common ground among all members. However, with
some members sticking to what, to them, became a ready-at-hand and unambiguous mean-
ing-making device, shared sense-making failed and the team fell apart.
In sum, this article’s findings extend our understanding of boundary objects’ proces-
sual, multimodal nature and draw attention to their fundamentally relational character.
We encourage future research to dig deeper into these aspects, particularly boundary
objects’ relationality, which we have only started to unpack in this final section of the
article. We need rich, longitudinal studies that move boundary objects’ processual, mul-
timodal, and relational nature from the periphery to the center of attention, further eluci-
dating boundary objects’ shape-shifting dynamics and unpacking in more detail the
relations that form, flow, and ebb between artifacts, collaborators, meanings, situations,
and so forth. Related questions are: How do boundary objects shape-shift when the origi-
nal artifact is not visually displayed but verbally expressed? If boundary objects emerge
in relations, what other actors and agencies are part of these relations beyond the collabo-
rators? The thoughts on multimodality we will detail in the next section might be helpful
for such and similar endeavors.
In addition, we need research that takes into consideration broader context aspects as
well as collaborators’ “inner worlds.” Basing this project on primarily video data of team
interactions and zooming in on one boundary object’s shifting shapes revealed rich new
insights but might have distracted us from other potential dynamics, such as inner reflec-
tion processes (e.g., what exactly were team members thinking in the moments the road-
map was used?) or background aspects (e.g., was James particularly trained by his
Nathues et al. 27
organization in utilizing the roadmap in the way he evangelized it?). Although these
matters were not relevant to our objective, they constitute promising starting points for
future research endeavors. These could, for example, include interviews to learn more
about collaborators’ motives and interpretations of why certain artifacts are used or ses-
sions in which video recordings are re-watched with team members, asking them to
reflect on their interactions.
Toward an empirical account of “strong” multimodality

This article constitutes a rare, if not the first, empirical account of “strong” multimodal-
ity (Zilber, 2018) in organizational research: we have treated the visual, verbal, and
embodied modes of communication as co-emerging, interdependent, and equally conse-
quential, enabled by fine-grained analyses of rich audiovisual data. Our account of
boundary objects’ shape-shifting dynamics provides novel insights into how different
modes enmesh in practice, substantiating emerging understandings of modes’ processual
and inseparable nature (Boxenbaum et al., 2018; Dille and Plotnikof, 2020; Knight and
Wenzel, forthcoming).
Much of the multimodality literature continues to treat modes as independent, reified,
and clearly separable. Though it is acknowledged that modes can complement or contradict
each other (e.g., when a visual strengthens the message conveyed by a text, Höllerer et al.,
2018), they often remain conceptualized as ways of expression existing in separable
domains (e.g., the “visual” vs the “verbal” realm). Spurred by the growing prominence of
the “visual turn” in organizational research (Meyer et al., 2013), multimodality research is
furthermore marked by an overemphasis on visual matters at the expense of more embod-
ied aspects (Boxenbaum et al., 2018; see also Dameron et al., 2015). In contrast, this article
simultaneously considers visual, verbal, and embodied modes and illustrates how the very
same boundary object can emerge in varying multimodal shapes. Hence, our findings prob-
lematize the separation of modes, demonstrating how an artifact that is visually present can
readily migrate into what is said and how bodies are moved.
One crucial implication this insight stresses is that visual, verbal, and embodied
modes can be equally important and blur into each other as inseparable sites of meaning-
making. As a case in point, had we considered the boundary object we studied to be
present solely when visually displayed, we would have missed many of its meaning-
making implications. In fact, we would likely have missed the minuscule but consequen-
tial details that eventually stalled collaborative work. Our findings thus chime in with
others who have drawn attention to a substantial blind spot in organizational theorizing
(Boxenbaum et al., 2018; Zilber, 2018): when research focuses on single modes and
theorizes multimodal phenomena in reified rather than processual terms, it risks bypass-
ing decisive details and telling just parts of the story.
Taking seriously that communication comprises multiple interweaving modes requires
analyses with a fine-grained sensitivity for different ways of expression and studies that
attune toward modes’ emerging and shifting connections. The material understanding of
communication (Cooren et al., 2012) that we also drew inspiration from can prove fruit-
ful for such endeavors. When we approach communication as a process of materializing,
then the classical divide between the world of discourse and sociality on the one hand
and the world of materiality on the other begins to dissolve (Cooren, 2018). Combined
with methodological guidance on visuality and embodiment (e.g., Clarke et al., 2021;
Gylfe et al., 2016; Meyer et al., 2013) and applied to rich audiovisual data, such a take
on communication can hence be a valuable anchor point for more complete and “stronger”
considerations of multimodality in organization studies (see also Boxenbaum et al.,
2018). It can help us further reveal modes’ co-constitutiveness as every mode then, by
implication, also has a material dimension. In particular, the notion of ventriloquism
(Cooren, 2010) might be of use, providing an analytical apparatus (Nathues et al., 2021)
for deliquescing classical separations between sociality and materiality. Though organi-
zational practices are not yet often analyzed as multimodal accomplishments, we hope
that this article can inspire such endeavors in order to further gauge and unpack modes’
complexity, inseparability, and consequentiality.
Practical implications
Although our analyses are limited to a specific setting and boundary object, we see two
practical implications. First, our study demonstrates how artifacts can become essential
features of collaborative meaning-making as part of what members say, do, and see: they
partake in work not just by being there physically or visually but also through uttered
words and body movements. Thus, collaborators will benefit from attuning to objects’
shifting shapes. These varying shapes enable understanding each other among those who
are familiarized with them. Yet, newcomers in a team may be unable to trace the heritage
and meaning of, for example, an intimately interwoven phrase or gesture.
Second, and more broadly, our study then also draws further attention to the complexity of
communication surrounding professionals in their everyday work. Whenever they communi-
cate, professionals engage in rich, multimodal ways. Talk, but just as well visual and embod-
ied expressions, can speak volumes (Höllerer et al., 2018; Wenzel and Koch, 2018) and make
important differences in how conversations, situations, and meaning-making unfold. “A pic-
ture is worth a thousand words,” but so might a single phrase or a simple gesture, we would
add. It remains up to us to elucidate what exactly we make each of them mean.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the LOST (Leuphana Organization & Social Transformation) group, the
members of the Viadrina Virtual Paper Sessions, as well as the RMI Institute at University Witten/
Herdecke for invaluable comments on earlier versions of this article. Thanks also to the partici-
pants of the EGOS 2021 sub-theme “Organizing Difference” and the Organizational Communication
division of the 2022 International Communication Association conference, where previous ver-
sions of this manuscript have been presented. Special thanks go to Boris Brummans, Boukje
Cnossen, and Dennis Schoeneborn for their great insight and advice. The authors also wish to
thank their editor, Zhijun Chen, and the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful guidance, as
well as the team that they followed for allowing them this rich insight into their work.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This research was partially funded by the European Funds for
Regional Development (EFRO) under project number PROJ-00729.
Nathues et al. 29
ORCID iD
Ellen Nathues https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4921-3720
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Akkerman S and Bakker A (2011) Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational
Research 81(2): 132–169.
Ashcraft KL, Kuhn TR and Cooren F (2009) Constitutional amendments: ‘Materializing’ organi-
zational communication. Academy of Management Annals 3(1): 1–64.
Barberá-Tomás D, Castelló I, de Bakker FGA, et al. (2019) Energizing through visuals: How
social entrepreneurs use emotion-symbolic work for social change. Academy of Management
Journal 62(6): 1789–1817.
Barrett M and Oborn E (2010) Boundary object use in cross-cultural software development teams.
Human Relations 63(8): 1199–1221.
Bechky BA (2003a) Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of
understanding on a production floor. Organization Science 14(3): 312–330.
Bechky BA (2003b) Object lessons: Workplace artifacts as representations of occupational juris-
diction. American Journal of Sociology 109(3): 720–752.
Berends H and Deken F (2021) Composing qualitative process research. Strategic Organization
19(1): 134–146.
Bittner EAC and Leimeister JM (2014) Creating shared understanding in heterogeneous work
groups: Why it matters and how to achieve it. Journal of Management Information Systems
31(1): 111–144.
Boxenbaum E, Jones C, Meyer RE, et al. (2018) Towards an articulation of the material and visual
turn in organization studies. Organization Studies 39(6): 597–616.
Caccamo M (2020) Leveraging innovation spaces to foster collaborative innovation. Creativity
and Innovation Management 29(1): 178–191.
Carlile PR (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new prod-
uct development. Organization Science 13(4): 442–455.
Clark HH and Wilkes-Gibbs D (1986) Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22(1): 1–39.
Clarke JS, Llewellyn N, Cornelissen J, et al. (2021) Gesture analysis and organizational research:
The development and application of a protocol for naturalistic settings. Organizational
Research Methods 24(1): 140–171.
Cloutier C and Langley A (2020) What makes a process theoretical contribution? Organization
Theory 1(1): 1–32.
Comeau-Vallée M and Langley A (2019) The interplay of inter- and intraprofessional boundary
work in multidisciplinary teams. Organization Studies 41(12): 1649–1672.
Comi A and Vaara E (2021) Political dynamics in knowledge work: Using visual artifacts to deal
with pragmatic boundaries. Organization Science 33(5): 1837–1860.
Comi A and Whyte J (2018) Future making and visual artefacts: An ethnographic study of a design
project. Organization Studies 39(8): 1055–1083.
Cooren F (2004) The communicative achievement of collective minding: Analysis of board meet-
ing excerpts. Management Communication Quarterly 17(4): 517–551.
Cooren F (2010) Action and Agency in Dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cooren F (2018) Materializing communication: Making the case for a relational ontology. Journal
of Communication 68(2): 278–288.
Cooren F, Fairhurst G and Huët R (2012) Why matter always matters in (organizational) com-
munication. In: Leonardi PM, Nardi BA and Kallinikos J (eds) Materiality and Organizing.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 296–314.
Dameron S, Lê JK and LeBaron C (2015) Materializing strategy and strategizing material: Why
matter matters. British Journal of Management 26(S1): S1–S12.
Deppermann A and Schmidt A (2021) How shared meanings and uses emerge over an interac-
tional history: Wabi sabi in a series of theater rehearsals. Research on Language and Social
Interaction 54(2): 203–224.
Dille MH and Plotnikof M (2020) Retooling methods for approaching discourse-materiality
relations: A new materialist framework of multimodal sensitivity. Qualitative Research in
Organizations and Management 15(4): 485–501.
Doolin B and McLeod L (2012) Sociomateriality and boundary objects in information systems
development. European Journal of Information Systems 21(5): 570–586.
Einola K and Alvesson M (2019) The making and unmaking of teams. Human Relations 72(12):
1891–1919.
Ewenstein B and Whyte J (2009) Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations
as epistemic objects. Organization Studies 30(1): 7–30.
Gal U, Lyytinen K and Yoo Y (2008) The dynamics of IT boundary objects, information infra-
structures, and organisational identities: The introduction of 3D modelling technologies into
the architecture, engineering, and construction industry. European Journal of Information
Systems 17(3): 290–304.
Garfinkel H (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gylfe P, Franck H, LeBaron C, et al. (2016) Video methods in strategy research: Focusing on
embodied cognition. Strategic Management Journal 37(1): 133–148.
Harvey S (2014) Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity.
Academy of Management Review 39(3): 324–343.
Henderson K (1991) Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases: Visual communication, conscrip-
tion devices, and boundary objects in design engineering. Science, Technology, & Human
Values 16(4): 448–473.
Holler J and Wilkin K (2009) Communicating common ground: How mutually shared knowledge
influences speech and gesture in a narrative task. Language and Cognitive Processes 24(2):
267–289.
Höllerer MA, Jancsary D and Grafström M (2018) ‘A picture is worth a thousand words’: Multimodal
sensemaking of the global financial crisis. Organization Studies 39(5–6): 617–644.
Hsiao R-L, Tsai D-H and Lee C-F (2012) Collaborative knowing: The adaptive nature of cross-
boundary spanning. Journal of Management Studies 49(3): 464–491.
Huxham C and Vangen S (2004) Doing things collaboratively: Realizing the advantage or suc-
cumbing to inertia? Organizational Dynamics 33(2): 190–201.
Jørgensen L, Jordan S and Mitterhofer H (2012) Sensemaking and discourse analyses in inter-
organizational research: A review and suggested advances. Scandinavian Journal of
Management 28(2): 107–120.
Jornet A and Steier R (2015) The matter of space: Bodily performances and the emergence of
boundary objects during multidisciplinary design meetings. Mind, Culture, and Activity
22(2): 129–151.
Knight E and Wenzel M (forthcoming) Multimodality in strategy as practice. In: Golsorkhi D,
Rouleau L, Seidl D, et al. (eds) Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Knight E, Paroutis S and Heracleous L (2018) The power of PowerPoint: A visual perspective on
meaning making in strategy. Strategic Management Journal 39(3): 894–921.
Nathues et al. 31
Koskinen K (2005) Metaphoric boundary objects as co-ordinating mechanisms in the knowledge

sharing of innovation processes. European Journal of Innovation Management 8(3): 323–335.
Kress G (2010) Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication.
London: Routledge.
Langley A (1999) Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review
24(4): 691–710.
Langley A, Lindberg K, Mørk BE, et al. (2019) Boundary work among groups, occupations, and
organizations: From cartography to process. Academy of Management Annals 13(2): 704–
736.
LeBaron C, Jarzabkowski P, Pratt MG, et al. (2018) An introduction to video methods in organi-
zational research. Organizational Research Methods 21(2): 239–260.
Leonardi PM, Bailey DE and Pierce CS (2019) The coevolution of objects and boundaries over
time: Materiality, affordances, and boundary salience. Information Systems Research 30(2):
665–686.
Lerner GH (1993) Collectivities in action: Establishing the relevance of conjoined participation in
conversation. Text 13(2): 213–245.
Levina N and Vaast E (2005) The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice:
Implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quarterly 29(2):
335–363.
Lutters WG and Ackerman MS (2007) Beyond boundary objects: Collaborative reuse in aircraft
technical support. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 16(3): 341–372.
Majchrzak A, Jarvenpaa SL and Bagherzadeh M (2015) A review of interorganizational collabora-
tion dynamics. Journal of Management 41(5): 1338–1360.
Meyer RE, Höllerer MA, Jancsary D, et al. (2013) The visual dimension in organizing, organiza-
tion, and organization research: Core ideas, current developments, and promising avenues.
Academy of Management Annals 7(1): 489–555.
Nathues E, Endedijk MD and van Vuuren M (2023) Perk or peril? Making sense of member differ-
ences when interorganizational collaboration begins. Small Group Research 54(5): 708–748.
Nathues E, van Vuuren M and Cooren F (2021) Speaking about vision, talking in the name of so
much more: A methodological framework for ventriloquial analyses in organization studies.
Organization Studies 42(9): 1457–1476.
Nicolini D, Mengis J and Swan J (2012) Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary
collaboration. Organization Science 23(3): 612–629.
Ojansivu I, Kettunen K and Alajoutsijärvi K (2021) At the temporary-permanent interface:
Overcoming knowledge boundaries with boundary objects. Scandinavian Journal of
Management 37(2): 101150.
Orlikowski WJ (2007) Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization
Studies 28(9): 1435–1448.
Oswick C and Robertson M (2009) Boundary objects reconsidered: From bridges and anchors to
barricades and mazes. Journal of Change Management 9(2): 179–193.
Paroutis S, Franco LA and Papadopoulos T (2015) Visual interactions with strategy tools: Producing
strategic knowledge in workshops. British Journal of Management 26(S1): S48–S66.
Pratt MG, Sonenshein S and Feldman MS (2022) Moving beyond templates: A bricolage approach to
conducting trustworthy qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods 25(2): 211–238.
Quick KS and Feldman MS (2014) Boundaries as junctures: Collaborative boundary work for build-
ing efficient resilience. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24(3): 673–695.
Schegloff EA (1991) Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In: Resnick LB, Levine
JL and Teasley SD (eds) Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association, 150–171.
Spee AP and Jarzabkowksi P (2009) Strategy tools as boundary objects. Strategic Organization
7(2): 223–232.
Star SL (1989) The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous dis-
tributed problem solving. In: Gasser L and Huhns M (eds) Distributed Artificial Intelligence.
San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 37–54.
Star SL (1999) The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist 43(3): 377–391.
Star SL (2010) This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science,
Technology, & Human Values 35(5): 601–617.
Star SL and Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects:
Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology. Social Studies of
Science 19(3): 387–420.
Streeck J, Goodwin C and LeBaron C (2011) Embodied Interaction in the Material World.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swan J, Bresnen M, Newell S, et al. (2007) The object of knowledge: The role of objects in bio-
medical innovation. Human Relations 60(12): 1809–1837.
Vásquez C, Schoeneborn D and Sergi V (2016) Summoning the spirits: Organizational texts and
the (dis)ordering properties of communication. Human Relations 69(3): 629–659.
Vygotsky LS (1986) Thought and Language. Trans. & ed. Kozulin A. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
(Original work published 1934).
Weick KR (1996) Drop your tools: An allegory for organizational studies. Administrative Science
Quarterly 41(2): 301–313.
Wenzel M and Koch J (2018) Strategy as staged performance: A critical discursive perspective
on keynote speeches as a genre of strategic communication. Strategic Management Journal
39(3): 639–663.
Zilber TB (2018) A call for a ‘strong’ multimodal research in institutional theory. Research in the
Sociology of Organizations 54(A): 63–84.
Ellen Nathues is an Assistant Professor of Organization, Collaboration & Communication at the

University of Twente, the Netherlands. Her research broadly focuses on processes of organization
and communication, particularly in pluralistic, open, and/or temporary contexts such as interor-
ganizational collaboration or learning communities. More specifically, she is interested in ques-
tions of multivoicedness, agency, materiality, and multimodality. So far, her research has been
published in Organization Studies, Strategic Organization, and Small Group Research, as well as
in edited handbooks. [Email: e.nathues@utwente.nl]
Mark van Vuuren is an Associate Professor of Organizational Communication at the University of
Twente, the Netherlands. His research and teaching focus on positive organizing and how flourish-
ing is accomplished in the everydayness of working. His most recent article is published in Human
Relations. [Email: mark.vanvuuren@utwente.nl]
Maaike D Endedijk is a Professor in the field of Professional Learning and the head of the
Professional Learning & Technology research group at the University of Twente, the Netherlands.
Her expertise is in self-directed professional learning, with a focus on the technical and health sec-
tors. She takes a process-oriented approach and uses innovative measures and technologies to
better understand and support individual and team learning and collaboration processes. [Email:
m.d.endedijk@utwente.nl]
Matthias Wenzel is Professor of Organization Studies at the Leuphana University of Lüneburg,
Germany. He examines the practices and processes of organizing and strategizing, as well as their
Nathues et al. 33
societal implications. His work has been published in journals such as the Journal of Management
Studies, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Long Range Planning, Organization Studies,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, and Strategic Management Journal,
among others. He currently serves on the Editorial Boards of Organization Studies and Strategic
Organization, and as Coeditor for Media Innovations of the Strategic Management Journal,
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, and Global Strategy Journal. [Email: matthias.wenzel@
leuphana.de]

Nathues Et Al 2024 Shape Shifting How Boundary Objects Affect Meaning Making Across Visual Verbal and Embodied Modes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nathues Et Al 2024 Shape Shifting How Boundary Objects Affect Meaning Making Across Visual Verbal and Embodied Modes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1236111

objects affect meaning-making Article reuse guidelines:

Mark van Vuuren

condense meaning-making into efficient communication among those familiarized with

From cross-functional projects to multidisciplinary groups to interorganizational teams,

A multimodal lens on the shifting shapes of boundary objects

Figure 1. Original boundary object; © Noventum Service Management (permission granted).

consisting of high-tech companies and service providers that differed on characteristics

Phase I: A potential boundary object

Figure 2. James’s representative gesture of the roadmap.

Expansion dynamics: intramodal shape-shifting. Meeting 3 proceeds, and James continues

Figure 3. James’s representative gesture of the roadmap, now downwards.

particular, he is explaining how new organizational structures make providing ser-

Phase II: An actual boundary object

Continued expansion dynamics: intermodal shape-shifting. Members are in their fourth

Figure 4. James’s representative gesture of the roadmap.

Looking for answers to why servitization proves challenging to implement, Robert is

Figure 5. Robert’s representative gesture of the roadmap.

Continued expansion dynamics: intramodal shape-shifting. While shared understandings

Phase III: An interwoven boundary object

Figure 7. James’s representative gesture of the roadmap.

Figure 8. Paul gesticulates the upwards curve with both hands.

Figure 9. Paul’s representative gesture of the roadmap.

Overall, in phase III, the roadmap functions as a deeply interwoven boundary

Phase IV: A boundary object creating new boundaries

Contraction dynamics constraining meaning-making. Early in meeting 8, Paul explains

1 Luke: So Product B2 should be able to make arrangements with customers on

Figure 10. Paul’s representative gesture of the roadmap.

Boundary objects as shape-shifters: Enabling and constraining meaning-

Toward an empirical account of “strong” multimodality

Koskinen K (2005) Metaphoric boundary objects as co-ordinating mechanisms in the knowledge

Ellen Nathues is an Assistant Professor of Organization, Collaboration & Communication at the

You might also like