Taxonomies as boundary objects for social change: enhancing visibility of academics’ impact-related information behaviours
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47989/ir31ISIC65143Keywords:
information behaviour, knowledge organisation, taxonomy, societal engagement, information creationAbstract
Introduction. This paper analyses taxonomies of societal engagement and impact associated with research as ‘boundary objects’ that mediate and make visible the information behaviours of academics undertaking this work.
Method. The study uses ‘boundary objects’ (Star & Griesemer, 1989) as an analytic lens to explore institutional approaches in Denmark and Australia that classify societal engagement and impact activities.
Analysis. The team used quad-ethnographic analyses of the taxonomical structures used in three schema - two used in proprietary research information management systems (Pure and Symplectic Elements) and one empirically designed taxonomy (ReACT) - to identify alignment and/or disjuncture with academic engagement and impact work.
Results. The findings show proprietary system taxonomies limit the scope of reportable engagement and impact activities, rendering many academics’ information behaviours invisible. Adopting empirically derived taxonomies that more closely represent engagement and impact work can make academics’ related information behaviours visible, thereby informing approaches to capability development and tracking of relevant impact work.
Conclusion. The study identifies the limitations and benefits of how each schema represents (or renders invisible) academics’ experiences of undertaking societal engagement and impact work.
References
Albrechtsen, H., & Jacob, E. K. (1998). The dynamics of classification systems as boundary objects for cooperation in the electronic library. Library Trends, 47(2), 293-312. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/dynamics-classification-systems-as-boundary/docview/220452474/se-2
Armstrong, K. (2008). Ethnography and audience. In P. Alasuutari, L. Bickman, J. Brannen (Eds.) Ethnography and audience (pp. 54-67). SAGE Publications Ltd, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446212165.n5
Balaban, C., & de Jong, S. P. L. (2023). Academic identity at the intersection of global scientific communities and national science policies: societal impact in the UK and Netherlands. Studies in Higher Education, 48(6), 941–962. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2195424
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Borrego, Á., and Anglada, L. (2016) Faculty information behaviour in the electronic environment: Attitudes towards searching, publishing and libraries. New Library World, 117(3/4), 173–85. https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-11-2015-0089.
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. MIT Press.
Burleigh, D., & Burm, S. (2022). Doing duoethnography: Addressing essential methodological questions. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221140876 (Original work published 2022)
Caccamo, M., Pittino, D., & Tell, F. (2023). Boundary objects, knowledge integration, and innovation management: A systematic review of the literature. Technovation, 122, Article 102645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102645
Cattlin, J., & Given, L. M. (2025). Reciprocity in information exchange: How social exchange enriches collaborative research partnerships. Information Research an International Electronic Journal, 30(CoLIS), 159–173. https://doi.org/10.47989/ir30CoLIS52279
Chubb, J., Watermeyer, R., & Wakeling, P. (2017). Fear and loathing in the academy? The role of emotion in response to an impact agenda in the UK and Australia. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(3), 555–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1288709
Davenport, E. (2000). Clinical guidelines and the translation of texts into care: Overcoming professional conflicts concerning evidence-based practice. Journal of Documentation, 56, 505–519. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007125
Davies, E. & McKenzie, P. J. (2004). Preparing for opening night: temporal boundary objects in textually-mediated professional practice. Information Research, 10(1) paper 211. http://InformationR.net/ir/10-1/paper211.html
Du, J.T., & Chu, C.M. (2022). Toward community-engaged information behavior research: A methodological framework. Library & Information Science Research, 44 (4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2022.101189
Elezi, E. (2021). Role of knowledge management in developing higher education partnerships: Towards a conceptual framework. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 38(3), 279-293. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2782
Galison, P. (1997). Image & logic — A material culture of microphysics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Gourlay, L. (2024). Surveillance and datafication in higher education: Documentation of the human. Postdigital Science and Education, 1039–1048. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00352-x
Guthrie, S., Wamae, W., Diepeveen, S., Wooding, S., & Grant, J. (2013). Measuring research: A guide to research evaluation frameworks and tools. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1217.html
Hacking, I. (1999). The Social construction of what? Harvard University Press.
Huvila, I. (2011). The politics of boundary objects: Hegemonic interventions and the making of a document. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(12), 2528–2539. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21639
Huvila, I. (2012). Authorship and documentary boundary objects. 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Article 6149084. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2012.126
Huvila, I. (2013). How a museum knows? Structures, work roles, and infrastructures of information work. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(7), 1375–1387. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22852
Huvila, I., Anderson, T. D., Jansen, E. H., McKenzie, P., Westbrook, L., & Worrall, A. (2014). Boundary objects in information science research: An approach for explicating connections between collections, cultures and communities. Proceedings of the American Society of Information Science and Technology. 51(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.2014.14505101003
Huvila, I., Anderson, T. D., Jansen, E. H., McKenzie, P., & Worrall, A. (2017). Boundary objects in information science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(8), 1807-1822. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.2014.14505101003
Huvila, I., Enwald, H., Eriksson‐Backa, K., Liu, Y. H., & Hirvonen, N. (2022). Information behavior and practices research informing information systems design. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 73(7), 1043-1057. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24611
Huvila, I, Andersson, L., & Sköld, O. (2024). Patterns in paradata preferences among the makers and reusers of archaeological data. Data and Information Management, 8(4), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dim.2024.100077
Huvila, I., Enwald, H., Eriksson‐Backa, K., Liu, Y., & Hirvonen, N. (2022). Information behavior and practices research informing information systems design. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 73(7), 1043–1057. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24611
Kelly, W.B., & Given, L.M. (2023). The community engagement for impact (CEFI) framework: An evidence-based strategy to facilitate social change. Studies in Higher Education, 49(3), 441-459. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2238762
Leitch, S., Warren, M.J. (2010). ETHICS: The past, present and future of socio-technical systems design. In: Tatnall, A. (eds) History of Computing. Learning from the Past. 2010. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 325. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15199-6_19
Lippell, H. (2022). Taxonomies: practical approaches to developing and managing vocabularies for digital information. Facet Publishing. https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783304837
Lykke, M., Amstrup, L., Hvidtfeldt, R., & Pedersen, D. B. (2023). Mapping research activities and societal impact by taxonomy of indicators: Uniformity and diversity across academic fields. Journal of Documentation, 79(5), 1049-1070. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2022-0131
Milat, A. J., Bauman, A. E., & Redman, S. (2015). A narrative review of research impact assessment models and methods. Health Research Policy and Systems, 13, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-015-0003-1
Miller, F. Q. (2015). Experiencing information use for early career academics’ learning: A knowledge ecosystem model. Journal of Documentation, 71(6), 1228-1249. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-04-2014-0058
Morton, S. (2015). Progressing research impact assessment: A “contributions” approach. Research Evaluation, 24, 405–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv016
Nickerson, R.C., Varshney, U., & Muntermann, J. (2013). A method for taxonomy development and its application in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(3), 336-359, https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.26
Pedersen, D. B., Grønvad, J. F., & Hvidtfeldt, R. (2020). Methods for mapping the impact of social sciences and humanities—A literature review. Research Evaluation, 29(1), 4-21. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvad011
Pedersen, D. B. & Hvidtfeldt, R. (2024). The missing links of research impact. Research Evaluation, 33, Article rvad011. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvad011
Polkinghorne, S., & Given, L.M. (2021). Holistic information research: From rhetoric to paradigm. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 72(10), 1261-1271. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24450
Lewis, J. & Ritchie, J. (2013). Generalising Qualitative Research. In J. Ritchie, R. Ormston, C. McNaughton Nicholls, & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 263-286). Sage Publishing.
Sawyer, R. & Norris, J. (2015). Duoethnography: A retrospective 10 years after. International Review of Qualitative Research 8(1), 1-4.https://doi.org/10.1525/irqr.2015.8.1.1
Smit, J. P., & Hessels, L. K. (2021). The production of scientific and societal value in research evaluation: A review of societal impact assessment methods. Research Evaluation, 30(3), 323-335. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab002
Smith, K. E., Bandola-Gill, J., Meer, N., Stewart, E., & Watermeyer, R. (2020). The impact agenda: Controversies, consequences and challenges (1st ed.). Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11g95dd
Spaapen, J. & van Drooge, L. (2011). Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 211-218, https://doi:10.3152/095820211X1294137187674
Star, S.L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, technology, & human values, 35(5), 601-617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243910377624
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social studies of science, 19(3), 387-420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003
Steinerová, J. (2019). The societal impact of information behaviour research on developing models of academic information ecologies. Proceedings of CoLIS, the Tenth International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science, Ljubljana, Slovenia, June 16-19, 2019. Information Research, 24(4). Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/24-4/colis/colis1905.html
Tan, C. N. L. (2016). Enhancing knowledge sharing and research collaboration among academics: The role of knowledge management. Higher Education, 71(4), 525-556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9922-6
Veer-Ramjeawon, P., & Rowley, J. (2019). Embedding knowledge management in higher education institutions (HEIs): A comparison between two countries. Studies in Higher Education, 45(11), 2324–2340. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1608431
Watermeyer, R., & Tomlinson, M. (2022). Competitive accountability and the dispossession of academic identity: Haunted by an impact phantom. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 54(1), 92-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2021.1880388
Willson, R. (2018). “Systemic Managerial Constraints” How universities influence the information behaviour of HSS early career academics. Journal of Documentation, 74(4), 862-879. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-07-2017-0111
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Joann Cattlin, Lisa M. Given, Rolf Hvidtfeldt, Marianne Lykke
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
